K1063008 210110 

## UNITED NATIONS 

# EP

UNEP /OzL.Pro.22/9



# United Nations Environment Programme Distr.: General 26 November 2010

Original: English

Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer Bangkok, 8–12 November 2010



## Report of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Introduction

1. The Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was held at the United Nations Conference Centre in Bangkok from 8 to 12 November 2010. It consisted of a preparatory segment, held from 8 to 10 November, and a high-level segment, held on 11 and 12 November. 

## Part One: Preparatory segment
I. Opening of the preparatory segment

2. The preparatory segment was opened by its co-chairs, Mr. Fresnel Díaz (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) and Mr. Martin Sirois (Canada) , on Monday, 8 November 2010, at 10.25 a.m.

3. Opening statements were delivered by Mr. Pr apat Vanapitaksa, Director-General of the Department of Industrial Works, on behalf of the Minister of Industry of Thailand, and Mr. Marco González, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat.

4. In his statement, observing that the depletion of the ozone layer threatened the well-being of humankind, Mr. Vanapitaksa commended the world community on its determination to find sustainable solutions, as evidenced by the fact that the Montreal Protocol, with 196 parties, was the first environmental agreement to achieve universal ratification.

5. He praised the parties to the Protocol for achieving the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on 1 January 2010, thanks to the commitment of Governments, industry bodies and civil society in both developed and developing countrie s, and for reaching in 2007, on the twentieth anniversary of the Protocol, a historic agreem ent to accelerate the sche dule for phasing out hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). Those successes augured well for the outcome of the current meeting. He wished the representatives fruitful delib erations and declared the meeting officially open.

6. The Executive Secretary, in his statement, thanked the Government of Thailand for hosting the meeting and the staff members of the United Na tions Environment Programme (UNEP) Compliance Assistance Programme; of the Co nference Centre of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; and of the secretariat of the Multila teral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol for their cooperation in or ganizing the meeting. He said that the meeting was taking place at a crucial juncture in the history of the Montreal Prot ocol: the parties were expected to have already met the 2010 phase-out targets for CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride and were looking ahead toUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

2 completing the phase-out of methyl bromide and methyl chloroform in 2015, which could be expected to take place on schedule thanks to the impl ementation of projects already approved by the Multilateral Fund. With those successes as background , parties needed to turn their attention to phasing out HCFCs.

7. Turning to the agenda for the meeting, he noted that the parties were to continue to discuss a number of proposals relating to the Multilateral Fund . They included proposals on terms of reference for an evaluation of the Fund, including its scope and funding; on the terms of reference for the replenishment of the Fund for the period 2012–2014; on a review of guidelines for funding the phase-out of HCFCs recently approved by the Multilateral Fund Executive Committee; and on clarifying the eligibility for funding of projects to phase out HCFCs pre-blended in polyols. Parties were also to continue to discuss four proposals on the environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances and two proposals to amend the Protocol to provide for the phase-down of the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and two low-global-warming-potential hydrofluoroolefins. Other items for consideration were critical-use exemptions for 2011 and 2012, and quarantine and pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide; essential-use exemptions in respect of other ozone-depleting substances; and the exemptions applicable to laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances.

8. In closing he said that the parties to the Pr otocol could take pride in having successfully phased out most ozone-depleting substances, urging representatives to continue working towards a total phase-out with a view to ensuring complete protection of the ozone layer for the good of all. 

## II. Organizational matters

A. Attendance

9. The Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol was attended by representatives of the following parties to the Pr otocol: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cong o, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democr atic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, European Union, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, German y, Ghana, Grenada, Gu inea, Haiti, Holy See, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malays ia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mo ngolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Ni geria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzan ia, United States of Amer ica, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

10. Representatives of the following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies also attended: Global Environment Facility, Secretariat of the Ba sel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Development Prog ramme, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, World Bank.

11. The following intergovernmental, non-governmental and industry bodies were also represented: African Oxygen Limited, Alliance fo r Responsible Atmospheric Policy, APL Asia Co. Ltd, Arkema Inc., Arysta LifeScience North Am erica LLC, Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development, Australian Urethane Systems Pty. Ltd, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, California Strawberry Commission, Catalinos Berry Farms, Centre for Energy Environment Research & Development Co. Ltd, Chemcofer Pty. Ltd, Chemtura Corporation, CYDSA, Daikin Industries Ltd, Dev TV, Dow AgroSciences LLC, ECI International Co. Ltd, Ecologists for Sustainable Development, Environmental Investigation Agency, Federation of Thai Industries, Foam Supplies Inc., Global Environmental Refrigerant Gase s P/L, Green Alternatives and Peace Movement Uganda, Green Cooling Association, Greenpeace International, GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

3 Zusammenarbeit GmbH), Gujarat Fl uorochemicals Limited, ICF Macr o, ICL Industrial Products, Industrial Foams Pvt. Ltd, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, International Institute of Re frigeration, Iran Refrigeration Association, King Mongkut’s University of Technology, League of Arab States, M. De Hondt bvba, Mebrom NV, Natural Resources Defense Council, Navin Fluorine International Limited, Pertamina, Princeton University, PT Airkon Pratama, PT Nugas Tran s Energy, PT Dayu Nusantara, PT Grasse Arum Lestari, Quimobásicos S.A. de C.V., Refrigerants Australia, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Manufacturers’ Association of In dia, Research, Innova tion and Incubation Center, RTI Technologies, Shecco, SRF Limited, Technology, Education, Research and Rehabilitation for the Environment Policy Centre, TouchDown Consulting, Trans-Mond Environment Ltd, World Customs Organization Regional Intelligence Liaison Offices.


### B. Officers

12. The preparatory segment of the meeting wa s co-chaired by Mr. Díaz and Mr. Sirois. 

### C. Adoption of the agenda for the preparatory segment

13. The following agenda for the pr eparatory segment was adopted on the basis of the provisional agenda contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/1: 1. Opening of the preparatory segment: (a) Statements by representative(s) of the Government of Thailand; (b) Statements by representative(s) of the United Nations Environment Programme. 2. Organizational matters: (a) Adoption of the agenda of the preparatory segment; (b) Organization of work. 3. Consideration of membership of Montreal Protocol bodies for 2011: (a) Members of the Impl ementation 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; (d) Co-chairs of the assessment panels. 4. 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.

5. Issues related to the financial mechanism under Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol:
(a) Terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism (decision XXI/28); (b) Terms of reference for a study on the 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund; (c) Assessment of the hydrochlorofluorocarbon guidelines approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund. 6. Status of hydrochlorofluorocarbons blended in polyols as controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol. 7. Environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances: (a) Technologies and related facilities for the destruction of ozone-depleting substances; (b) Environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances. 8. Proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol. 9. Phase-out of HFC-23 as a by-product emission of the production of HCFC-22.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

4 10. Issues related to exemptions from Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol: (a) Nominations for critical-use exemptions for 2011 and 2012; (b) Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide; (c) Nominations for essential-use exemptions for 2011; (d) Laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances (decision XXI/6); (e) Issues relating to the use of ozone-depleting substances as process agents (decision XXI/3). 11. Special situation of Haiti. 12. Compliance and data reporting issues: (a) Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances relative to compliance;
(b) Presentation on and consideration of the work and recommended decisions of the Implementation Committee.

13. Other matters.

14. During the adoption of the agenda for the preparatory segment, the parties agreed to take up under agenda item 13, “Other matters”, a draft decision on halons in airframes; information documents submitted by the United States of America on low-global-warming-potential alternatives to ozone-depleting substances; and a draft decision on the import of HCFCs by Kazakhstan pending its ratification of the amendments to the Montreal Protocol. 

### D. Organization of work

15. The parties agreed to follow their customary procedure and to establish contact groups as
necessary. 

## III. Consideration of membership of Montreal Protocol bodies for 2011

16. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that it would be necessary at the current meeting to nominate and endorse candidates for several positions in Montreal Protocol bodies for 2011. He requested the regional groups to subm it nominations to the Secretariat.

17. The Executive Secretary and several represen tatives praised Mr. Jan van der Leun and Mr. José Pons Pons, who were stepping down as Co-Chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, respectively, for their long and outstanding service to the Montreal Protocol.

18. The representative of the United States introduc ed a conference room paper containing a draft decision that, among other things, combined two draft decisions considered at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on membership ch anges on the assessment panels and included matters relating to the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.

19. The parties subsequently agreed on the memb ership of the Implementation Committee and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, on co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group and the assessment panels and on matters relating to the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, approving draft decisions reflecting that agreement for further consid eration during the high-level segment. 

## IV. 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 Oz one Layer and budgets of the Montreal Protocol

20. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair noted that it had been the practice at past meetings to establish a budget commit tee to review budget-related docume nts and prepare one or more draft decisions on budgetary matters for consideration by the Meeting of the Parties. In accordance with that practice the parties agreed to establish such a co mmittee, chaired by Mr. Ives Enrique Gomez Salas (Mexico).UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

5 21. Following the work of the budget group the chair of the group introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on administrative and financial matters and budgets. The parties approved the draft decision for further consider ation during the high-level segment, on the understanding that missing numbers in certain budget lines would be provided from the floor during the high-level segment.



## V. Issues related to the financia l mechanism under Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol

A. Terms of reference for an evalua tion of the financial mechanism (decision XXI/28)

22. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision XXII/[C], on an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3). He recalled that the draft decision had been discussed at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group but said that it would require further discussion.

23. Mr. Paul Krajnik (Austria), co-chair of the contact group that had discussed the matter at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, reported on that group’s deliberations.

24. The parties agreed to establish a contact group, co-chaired by Mr. Krajnik and Mr. David Omotosho (Nigeria), to consider the draft decision further.

25. Following the contact group’s deliberations the pa rties approved the draft decision for further consideration during th e high-level segment. 

### B. Terms of reference for a study on the 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund

26. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision XXII/[D], on terms of reference for a study on the 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (UNEP/OzL.Pr o.22/3). He recalled that the draft decision had been discussed at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group but said that it would require further discussion.

27. Mr. Krajnik, co-chair of the contact group that had discussed the matter at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, reported on that group’s deliberations.

28. Following Mr. Krajnik’s report one representative said that the study on the replenishment was of great importance given the forthcoming phase-out targets under the Montreal Protocol, and urged that it should fully reflect the needs and capacities of developing countries.

29. The parties agreed that the contact group established under agenda item 5 (a) would also consider the draft deci sion on the terms of reference for the study.

30. Following the contact group’s deliberations the parties approved the draft decision for further consideration during th e high-level segment. 

### C. Assessment of the hydrochlorofluorocarbon guidelines approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund

31. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision XXII/[E], on assessment of the HCFC guidelines approved by the Executive Committ ee of the Multilateral Fund (UNE P/OzL.Pro.22/3). He recalled that the draft decision had been discussed at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group but said that it would require further discussion.

32. Mr. Krajnik, co-chair of the contact group that had discussed the matter at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, reported on that group’s deliberations.

33. An informal group, co-chaired by Mr. Blaise Horisberger (Switzerland ) and Mr. Leslie Smith (Grenada), was established by the co-chairs of the preparatory segment to discuss agenda items 5 (c), 8 and 9.

34. The resolution of the sub-item is described below in chapters VIII and IX.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

6 

## VI. Status of hydrochlorofluoroc arbons blended in polyols as controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol

35. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision XXII/[F], on the status of HCFCs blended in polyols as controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3). He recalled that the Open-ended Working Group had discussed the draft decision at its thirtieth meeting but had not achieved consensus.

36. The representative of India, the proponent of the draft decision, explained that the objective of the proposal was to seek affirmation of the status of HCFCs preblended in polyols as controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol.

37. Mr. Mikkel Sorensen (Denmark), co-chair of the contact group that had discussed the matter at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Gr oup, reported on that group’s deliberations. He noted that the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund had considered the matter at its sixty-first meeting and had agreed to fund the conversion of HCFCs preblended in polyols.

38. The parties agreed that interested parties should meet informally to discuss the matter.

39. The representative of the United States subse quently introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on HCFCs preblended in polyols, which the parties approved for further consideration during th e high-level segment. 

## VII. Environmentally sound manage ment of banks of ozone-depleting substances A. Technologies and related facilities for the destruction of ozone-depleting substances

40. The Co-Chair introduced draft decisions XXII/[G]–XXII/[I], on technologies and related facilities for the destruction of ozone-depleting subs tances (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3). He recalled that the draft decisions had been discussed at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, but said that they would require further discussion.

41. Ms. Annie Gabriel (Australia), co-chair of the contact group that had discussed the matter at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, reported on that group’s deliberations.

42. The parties agreed to establish a contact group, to be co-chaired by Ms. Gabriel and Mr. Javier Ernesto Camargo Cubillos (Colombia), to discuss the matter and to consider the draft decisions further.

43. Following the work of the contact group, its co-chair introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on destruction techno logies with regard to ozone-depleting substances, which the parties approved for further consideration during the high-level segment. 

### B. Environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances

44. The Co-Chair introduced draft decisions XXII /[J]–XXII/[L], on the environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3). He recalled that they had been discussed at the thirtieth meeting of the Open -ended Working Group, but said that they would require further discussion.

45. Ms. Gabriel, co-chair of the contact group that had discussed the matter at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, reported on that group’s deliberations.

46. The parties agreed that the contact group established under agenda item 7 (a) would also consider the dr aft decisions.

47. Following the contact group’s deliberations its co-chair reported that the group had not had sufficient time to complete its work. It would ther efore not proceed with its consideration of the item at the current meeting and would seek to chart a way forward on outstanding issues for discussion in 2011.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

7 

## VIII. Proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol
IX. Phase-out of HFC-23 as a by-product emission of the production of HCFC-22

48. The parties agreed to consider agenda items 8 and 9 together. The Co-Chair recalled that proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol relating to HFCs had been submitted and initially considered at the thirtieth meeting of the Open -ended Working Group and had been forwarded for consideration by the Meeting of the Parties.

49. Under item 8 the representatives of Canada, Me xico and the United States jointly presented their proposal (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/5). The representativ e of the United States said that it was necessary to coordinate and harmonize approaches to dealing with HFCs, preserving and building upon the climate benefits that had arisen from the phase-out of CFCs and HCFCs. It was acknowledged that the phase-out of HCFCs was still in its early stages and th at a number of countries had just submitted their HCFC phase-out management plans; timely action on HFCs, however, would avert the additional costs that would accrue if action was delayed, and altern atives with low global-warming potential did exist in many sectors and could feasibly be adopted. The aim of the proposal was not to diminish the responsibility of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for HFCs but rather to work in conjunction with that convention to phase down emissions of the substance, for which the Montreal Protocol had been partly responsible. The representative of Mexico added that the proposed amendment would assist parties operating under paragr aph 1 of Article 5 to adopt integrated solutions in an area in which the Montreal Protocol had considerable experi ence, and to receive appropriate financial and technical support in implementing those solutions.

50. The representative of the Federated States of Micronesia presented his country’s proposal (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/6). He said that the Montreal Protocol had a moral and legal obligation to address the issue of HFC emissions, noting that Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer mandated parties to adopt appropriate measures with regard to human activities that had adverse effects re sulting from modification of the ozone layer, and that such effects included climate change.

51. Under item 9 the Co-Chair introduced draft decision XXII/[M], on the phase-out of HFC-23 as a by-product emission of the production of HCFC-22, proposed by Canada, Mexico and the United States (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3). He recalled that a related draft decision had been considered by the same informal open-ended group that had discussed the proposed amendments at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. The re presentative of the United States said that the proposal recognized the need for immediate action to phase out HFC-23 emissions, summarizing the main components of the draft decision.

52. In the ensuing discussion, some representatives expressed opposition to further discussion of HFCs, but many favoured continuing dialogue on what they said was an important matter. One suggested that there should be wide-ranging debate at the current meeting, including consideration of high-global-warming-potential and low-global-warming-potential alternatives to HFCs and the development and application of guidelines on how such alternatives were selected.

53. The parties engaged in extended discussion of whether HFCs fell within the mandate of the Montreal Protocol given that they were covered by the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. Several representatives said that HFCs did not fall within the scope of the Montreal Protocol because action taken to reduce their emissions would not benefit the ozone layer; they urged that the Protocol should be limited to matters that lay clearly within its mandate. Others, however, argued that Article 2 of the Vienna Co nvention allowed the parties to coordinate their policies in managing the phase-out of HCFCs and the introduction of alternatives, including HFCs, and that action to reduce HFCs was clear ly appropriate under the Protocol.

54. One representative, supported by others, said that under the climate change negotiations the parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Ch ange were already considering HFCs within the new commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and that any decision on HFCs under the Montreal Protocol should await the outcomes of that proces s. Other representatives said that input from the Montreal Protocol had the potential to support rather than hinder those discussions and that linkages between the Kyoto Protocol and the Montreal Protocol on HFCs and other matters should be further explored. One representative quoted previous initiativ es dating back to 1998 to demonstrate that the parties to the Protocol had been discussing HFCs for some time, including in collaboration with the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and that the Protocol was the inst rument best placed toUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

8 address the substance from a techni cal viewpoint. Another suggested that the proposed amendments could not proceed without a joint meeting of the parties to the relevant conventions, involving extended consultation with all parties.

55. Several representatives from States vulnerable to the effects of climat e change stressed the need for urgent action on substances with high glob al-warming potential. A nu mber of representatives said that the Montreal Protocol had a responsibility to avoid the adoption of such substances as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. One re presentative expressed concern at the implications for the long-term stability of industry of introducing alternatives without proper evaluation of their feasibility and impacts.

56. Others, however, said that the priorities of the Montreal Protocol lay elsewhere. The task of phasing out HCFCs was already stretching the resources of many parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, and banks of ozone-depleting substances also required urgent attention. Greater clarity was needed on such issues, incl uding in respect of funding.

57. The issue of common but differentiated responsibilitie s, and the implications of that principle for resource allocation, figured prominently in th e discussion. One representative said that both proposed amendments respected the principle, as they foresaw different timescales for phasing down HFCs for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so operating. Another representative said that the Montreal Protocol had been one of the first multilateral environmental agreements to implement the principle, in particul ar in creating the Multilateral Fund and adopting the worldwide implementation of ozone-depleting substance phase-out schedules. Another representative, however, said that the inclusion of HFCs in the Montreal Protocol would imply the imposition of binding obligations on all parties to the ozone regime despite the fact that under the climate change regime such obligations applied only to Annex I parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change; consideration of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol would thus entail clear disrespect of the principle of common but differentiated responsib ilities. A number of representatives stressed the importance of providing adequate funding and technology transfer in developing and implementing alternatives.

58. A number of representatives suggested that further study of the issues under discussion was needed, and suggested areas where the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel could further evaluate the implications of the proposed amendments.

59. Two representatives of non-governmental organizations spoke strongly in favour of the proposed amendments and supported immediate ac tion to phase out HFCs under the aegis of the Montreal Protocol.

60. An informal group, co-chaired by Mr. Horisberger and Mr. Smith, was established by the co-chairs of the preparatory segment to discuss agenda items 5 (c), 8 and 9 of the agenda of the preparatory segment of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties. The group organized its discussions by starting to consider the draft decision under item 5 (c) on an assessment of the HCFC guidelines approved by the Executive Committee. As the discussions could not be completed during the time available, the informal group agreed that the discussions on those issues should continue during the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.

61. The parties took note of the informal group’s discussions. 

## X. Issues related to exemptions from Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol

62. The parties began their consideration of the item with a presentation by representatives of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees.

63. The co-chairs of the Methyl Bromide Techni cal Options Committee, Mr. Mohamed Besri, Mr. Ian Porter, Ms. Michelle Marcotte and Ms. Marta Pizano, gave a presentation on the final assessment of critical-use nominations and issues related to quarantine and pre-shipment use of methyl bromide.

64. Mr. Besri presented an overview of the critical-use nominations for 2011 and 2012. He noted that since 2005 only five parties had continued to submit nominations; all five had continued to submit nominations for both pre-plant soil and post-harvest uses, but at different rates. In 2011 Israel was expected to phase out all uses and Japan all uses for soil.

65. In the 2010 round of nominations, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee had considered nominations for 1,481 metric tonnes of methyl bromide, compared to 2,261 metric tonnesUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

9 nominated in 2009. With the exception of one party, the methyl bromide stocks held by all parties were small from 2005 to 2009. Stocks at the end of 2009 reported by the United States were more than three times the amount of methyl bromide for wh ich the party submitted its nomination for 2012.

66. A workplan was presented showing tasks and timelines for critical-use nomination assessment for 2011.

67. Mr. Porter then presented an overview of the 27 nominations for pre-plant soil use of methyl bromide for 2011 and 2012 from five parties (Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and the United States). At its first meeting, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee had made interim recommendations on the 27 critical-use nominations for pre-plant soil use, nine for 2011 and 18 for 2012. Of the 27 nominations, only one had required reassessment. Following the final assessment the Committee recommended all nominations. The Commi ttee had also recommended a supplementary nomination for 2011 from Australia for 5.95 metric tonnes for strawberry runners.

68. In its final assessment, the Committee had recommended a total of 230.447 additional tonnes for soil use in 2011 and had not recommended 7.750 tonnes; for 2012 the Committee had recommended 1,193.108 tonnes and had not recommended 78.541 tonnes.

69. He reported that Israel, Japan and the United States had made significant progress in the phase-out of methyl bromide for most uses in the current round.

70. Regulatory issues were hindering efforts to employ alternatives in the strawberry fruit industry in the United States. Applicable regulations were preventing the use of barrier films to reduce the dose rate of methyl bromide and were resulting in higher emission factors for 1,3-D/Pic for shank application treatment, which, with a factor of x1.8 , was more effective than drip application (emission factor x1.1). The effect was to reduce the use of th is alternative under township caps, which restricted the amount of 1,3D that could be used.

71. He also reported that a substantial amount of methyl bromide (approximately 2,800 metric tonnes) was employed for nursery uses in the Unite d States; the party characterized that use as a quarantine and pre-shipment use, whereas similar us es in other countries had been considered under the critical-use process and some a lternatives to methyl bromide had been adopted. At its September meeting, the Committee had further discussed that issue but no agreemen t was reached on the definitional issues regarding the exemption.

72. Ms. Marcotte discussed the critical-use nominations for structures and commodities. In 2010, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee had received four such nominations pertaining to food-processing structures and four that included commodities (although one of the latter was incorporated in a nomination for a structure). The nominations receive d in 2010 included one for 2011, in which Canada had nominated 3.529 tonnes for pasta facilities, in response to which the Committee had recommended 2.084 tonnes. Australia, Japan and the United States had nominated 182.175 tonnes for 2012 and the Committee had recommended 101.105 tonnes.

73. In the 2010 round of nominations one party had nominated for 2011, making a total of 3.529 metric tonnes of methyl bromide. Seven nominations in that round for 2012 totalled 182.175 metric tonnes of methyl bromide. Parties had therefore nominated 185.704 metric tonnes of methyl bromide in that round. The Committee had recommended 2.084 tonnes for 2011 and 99.021 tonnes for 2012, bringing the total amount recommended to 101.105 tonnes for the 2010 round. The Committee had not recommended 84.599 tonnes in the 2010 round.

74. She explained some key changes that had ta ken place since the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. Australia had provided a new phase-out plan for the use of methyl bromide to disinfest Australian rice. The phase-out plan provided for a 25 per cent decrease in the nomination for 2012 over the party’s earlier nomination for that year, plus significant reductions in 2013 and 2014. The party had said that it would ensure that those decreases occurred even in times of low harvest. The party had indicated further that it would not nominate for rice in 2015.

75. The United States had requested the Committee to re-review its commodities nomination, which included dried fruit, walnuts and dates, an d had provided additional technical information. Upon consideration of the efficacy of an alternativ e for pest control in in-s hell walnuts, the Committee had been able to increase its final recommendation for the United States to 2.419 tonnes. The United States had also requested that the Committee should re-review the part of the National Pest Management Association nomination that pertained to cheese infested while in storage in manufacturing facilities. The Committee had been able to recommend 0.200 tonnes in 2012 for that

use.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

10 76. She pointed to a most noteworthy development concerning a regulatory clarification that would considerably reduce the amount of methyl bromide used to fumigate food-processing structures. The Committee, she said, could congratulate the United States and its applicant, the National Pest Management Association, on their recent negotiations, which had resulted in a new regulatory interpretation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency had clarified its regulatory interpretation regarding incidental fumigation of foods located in structures being fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride. That change showed the impact that regulatory improvements – even in the form of interpretations – could have on the adoption of alternatives. As a result of the regulatory interpretation, the National Pest Management Association had announced that it would not request the United States to submit a critical-use nomination for it in the following year. The previous year, the parties had granted the United States an exemption for over 17 metric tonnes of methyl bromide for the Association.

77. Ms. Pizano began by referring to questions raised by Australia during the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in respect of the reports prepared by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in 2009 and 2010 in response to decisions XX/6 and XXI/10. Australia had sought clarification of the scope of the work of the Methyl Bromid e Technical Options Committee’s quarantine and pre-shipment subcommittee, its work ing procedures and the information presented on consumption of methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes. Australia’s questions and the Panel’s responses had been posted on the we bsite of the Ozone Secretariat as an addendum to the Panel’s progress report of May 2010.

78. With regard to the scope of the work conducted, Ms. Pizano said that the Committee had not evaluated methyl bromide emissions because such work had not been requested in decisions XX/6 and XXI/10. She explained that, while the Panel had focused on three key methodologies, it was aware that other methodologies existed, including that suggested by Australia. The Committee had not addressed the risks of emissions to the ozone layer from quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide in its report as again that had not been requested by the decisions. The issue had, however, been addressed during the workshop on quarantine and pre-shipment uses held in Port Ghalib, Egypt, in November 2009 in the margins of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties. In response to a question regarding trade issues associated w ith quarantine and pre-shipment uses, she explained that such issues had been considered to the extent possible in the report, and that further work could be undertaken in that area.

79. Regarding the Committee’s working procedures, she said that the Committee used data reported and submitted by the parties and data from previous reports, where those were relevant. It considered existing definitions where they were available, and developed working definitions as appropriate for its work. In response to a questi on on how quantities were determined, she explained that when multiple sources of consumption data were provided, the Committee took steps to avoid double counting. A methodology for assessing any impact of a restriction on quarantine and pre-shipment uses had been proposed and was considered a work in progress; further guidance from parties in that respect would be appreciated.

80. Regarding how the analysis on methyl bromide consumption for quarantine and pre-shipment uses had been conducted, Ms. Pizano said that the Committee had not extrapolated future consumption and use of methyl bromide for those uses and ha d not been able to prov ide a range estimate for emissions from fumigated logs since the data available to it at the time had been insufficient. She recalled that the Committee and th e Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Task Force had highlighted a discrepancy of some 2,000 metric tonnes between the amounts of methyl bromide reported by parties for “use” and “consumption” in their reports, adding that no distinction had been made between the amounts of methyl bromide used in “good” and “bad” fumigations. The Committee had analysed official data reported or submitted by partie s for the purposes of the required analyses.

81. In her concluding remarks, Ms. Pizano said that since 1992 the Committee and the Task Force had reported on more available alternatives to qua rantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide. For the four main categories of use, the Panel in its 2010 progress report had stated that 31–47 per cent of global consumption of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment uses could be immediately replaced with alternatives. It would be complex to determine the impact of bans by exporting countries on the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment uses in importing countries. She ended her presentation by recalling that the Panel had described future work that could help further to quantify how much of the methyl bromide being used for the currently reported quarantine and pre-shipment uses could be replaced.

82. Following the presentation by the represen tatives of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, a number of questions were posed. Responding to those questions, Ms. PizanoUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

11 clarified that the Panel’s most recent report cons idered various alternatives to quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide. It was not, however, possible to fund trial projects using such alternatives for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 as they were not eligible for funding under the Multilateral Fund, the uses being exempt from the Protocol.

83. In response to another question, Ms. Marcotte noted the effectiveness of methyl bromide in fumigating high-moisture dates. Little information was available, however, as to the effectiveness of methyl iodide in that regard. She noted that research in Japan had shown promising results in respect of a specific pest affecting fresh chestnuts, but there was scant information on the effects of methyl iodide on other post-harvest commodities. She said that a company marketing methyl iodide was present at the current meeting and suggested that the matter could be discussed bilaterally. She also called upon other parties to circulate any relevant information that they might have.

84. Following the Panel’s presentation and the qu estions and answers, the Executive Secretary drew attention to an emergency use of methyl bromide by the Government of Canada, which had authorized the use of 3.5 metric tonnes to treat st rawberry runners on Prince Edward Island, although only 1.564 metric tonnes of that amount had actually been used. The Secretariat had requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to evaluate the use according to the relevant criteria and the Government of Canada to report on the use through the accounting framework that it would submit in 2011.

85. Mr. Porter said that the Panel and the Me thyl Bromide Technical Options Committee had assessed the emergency use, finding it responsible an d legitimate vis-à-vis the criteria for critical-use exemptions as the same use had been approved for criti cal-use exemptions in past years. He noted that pursuant to decision IX/7 the parties might wish to review the emergency use and provide further guidance to the Panel on action to be taken in respect of future emergencies. 

### A. Nominations for critical-use exemptions for 2011 and 2012

86. The Co-Chair recalled that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had reported on its initial evaluations of nominations for 2011 and 2012 critical-use exemptions at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. Since then the Panel had further evaluated some nominations in the light of additional information provided by nominating parties and had prepared its final recommendations in respect of the nominations.

87. The representative of Canada in troduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on critical-use exemptions based on the Panel’s final recommendations.

88. One representative said that parties had made si gnificant efforts to reduce quantities of methyl bromide used and outlined the progress made in his country. The complete elimination of methyl bromide in certain areas would, however, be a difficult task, given the existence of factors that impeded the use of alternatives, and his Government would stand firmly by its nomination for 2012. He also said that calculations used by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in arriving at its recommendations should be more transparent and that the Panel’s recommendations should be based on a robust consensus among all its members. He expressed particular concern at the new economic feasibility threshold employed by the Panel to determine when the adoption of alternatives should be considered, saying that it was arbitrary and insufficiently responsive to the legitimate concerns of parties.

89. Another representative expressed concern at the number of nominations for critical-use exemptions being submitted, especially by parties th at had considerable stockpiles of methyl bromide, and he requested clarification on how the level of stockpiles was taken into account in assessing exemptions. Another representative said that the work of the Methyl Br omide Technical Options Committee had been proactive and transparent an d that its recommendations were reasonable, although he agreed that the issue of stockpiles required further attention. The representative of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel said that in previous years the matter of stockpiles had been considered by the parties rather than by the Panel.

90. The Co-Chair suggested that interested parties should engage in informal discussions on the nominations for critical-use exemptions.

91. Following those consultations the representative of Canada introduced a conference room paper containing a revised version of the draft decision, saying that it took into account concerns expressed by a number of parties regarding stockpiles of methyl bromide.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

12 92. One representative said that his country supported the draft decision but believed that such stockpiles should be reviewed and taken into acco unt by the Methyl Brom ide Technical Options Committee, particularly in connection with its ev aluation of critical-use exemption requests. As methyl bromide stockpiles could jeopardize effective compliance with the Montreal Protocol, his country would continue to follow the issue closely. Another representative expressed support for those comments, stressing in particular the suggestio n that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee should take methyl bromide stocks into account in its assessment of critical-use nominations. Both representatives asked that thei r comments be reflected in the present report.

93. Following those comments the parties approv ed the revised draft decision for further consideration during th e high-level segment. 

### B. Quarantine and pre-shipme nt uses of methyl bromide

94. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision XXII/[N], on quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3 ). He recalled that a draft pro posal submitted by the European Union had been discussed by a contact group at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and that the proposal had been forwarded for discussion at the current meeting.

95. Ms. Robyn Washbourne (New Zealand), co-chair of the contact group that had discussed the matter at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, reported on that group’s deliberations.

96. The representative of the European Union introduced a conference room paper supplementing and amending the draft decision on methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment uses. The draft decision did not seek a full phase-out of methyl bromide for those purposes but requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to undertake a study of the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives and the effect of a nu mber of methyl bromide reduction and phase-out scenarios.

97. The parties agreed to establish a contact grou p, to be co-chaired by Ms. Washbourne and Ms. Tri Widayati (Indonesia), to discuss the matter and to consider the draft decision further.

98. Subsequently, the co-chair of the contact group reported that the group had not had sufficient time to consider proposed revisions to the draft decision properly and was accordingly unable to reach consensus on a way forward in respect of the issue.

99. The parties took note of the contact group co-chair’s report. 

### C. Nominations for essential-use exemptions for 2011

100. The Co-Chair recalled that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had reported on its recommendations in respect of nominations for 2011 and 2012 essential-use exemptions at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group; he explained that the Panel had since then reassessed the nomination of Bangladesh based on additional information provided by that party.

101. The representatives of India and the Islamic Repu blic of Iran reported that their countries had completed the phase-out of CFC-based metered-dose inhalers and were therefore withdrawing their essential-use nominations for 2011. The Co-Chair congratulated both countries on their outstanding achievements.

102. Ms. Helen Tope, Co-Chair of the Medical Technical Options Committee, presented information on the Committee’s review of Bangladesh’s revised essential-use nomination for 2011. Before doing so, she commended the significant achievements of India and the Islamic Republic of Iran in successfully phasing out CFC metered-dose inhalers.

103. She went on to recall the background to the review of Bangladesh’s essential-use nomination for 2011, which Bangladesh had requested the Committee to undertake during bilateral discussions with the Co-Chairs of the Committee at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. Following internal consultations with stakeholde rs, Bangladesh had submitted additional information and a revised nomination in September and October 2010, reducing its nomination from 113.73 metric tonnes of CFCs, for use in metered-dose inhalers, to 85 metric tonnes. From the information available, the Committee had concluded that by the end of 2010 production capacity for salbutamol and beclomethasone HFC metered-dose inhalers would be more than adequate for patients in Bangladesh. The party had submitted that physicians and patients would need more time to become accustomed to HFC inhalers, but the Committee considered that ther e would be little benefit in such a delay. Taking into account the revised quantities nominat ed, the Medical Technical Options Committee recommended an essential-use exemption for 37 tonnes of CFCs for metered-dose inhalers usingUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

13 ciclesonide, fluticasone/salmeterol, ipratropium, ipratropium/salbutamol, salmeterol and tiotropium only. The Committee was unable to recommend an exemption for metered-dose inhalers using beclomethasone, levosalbutamol and salbutamol, given the availability of alternatives.

104. The representative of Bangladesh requested rec onsideration of the matter, stating that the essential-use nomination of 85 metric tonnes was required for adequate treatment of those patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

105. The Co-Chair requested interested parties to prepare a draft decision on the matter, based on the information presented.

106. The representative of the Secretariat then report ed on a request from the Dominican Republic for an emergency essential-use exemption for 0.332 metric tonnes of CFC-113 for use in the manufacture of medical devices. In accordance with decision VIII/9 the Secretariat had evaluated the request in consultation with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and had authorized an exemption for that amount. Subseq uently the party had requested an exemption for an additional 2.78 metric tonnes to cover the period 2010–2011, explaining that there had been an error in its original request. In consultation with the Techno logy and Economic Assessment Panel the Secretariat had authorized the use of an additional 1.5 metric tonnes, bringing the total emergency-use exemption to 1.832 metric tonnes. The Secretariat had also ur ged the party to make every effort to adopt an alternative during the period of emergency-use exemption and had requested it to submit a framework report in accordance with the normal procedures for essential-use exemptions.

107. The representative of the Russian Federation introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on an essential- use exemption forCFC-113 for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation. He said that the requested exemption was identical to that discussed at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.

108. The parties approved the draft decision for further consideration during the high-level segment.

109. The representative of China introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2011, which the parties approved for further consideration during th e high-level segment. 

### D. Laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances (decision XXI/6)

110. The Co-Chair recalled that at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had reported on its evaluation of laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances and had recommended that 15 procedures should be eliminated from the global exemp tion for such uses and three pro cedures retained. In the Working Group’s discussion of the issue it had been noted that some parties had had difficulty in phasing out many uses, that it would be necessary to bear in mind the needs of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and that as yet unidentified uses might exist. He noted that the Panel had not prepared any new report on the matter since then but had called up on parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to provide information on any of their laboratory and analytical uses that had already been eliminated from the list of uses eligible for the exemption.

111. One representative suggested that developing countries would need time to phase in alternative technologies and substances for la boratory and analytical use, incl uding for the purpose of training personnel. The Co-Chair assured the representativ e that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel would take such issues into account, especially as they pertained to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, in the preparation of its report on the matter in 2011. He suggested that any further discussion on the present item could continue informally.

112. The representative of China introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on a global laboratory and an alytical use exemption.

113. Following informal consultations the representative of China introduced a conference room paper containing a revised version of the draft decision, which the parties approved for further consideration during th e high-level segment



### . 

### E. Issues relating to the use of ozone- depleting substances as process agents (decision XXI/3)

114. The Co-Chair recalled that at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had reported on the status of process-agent uses and hadUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

14 recommended eliminating from tables A and B of decision X/14 a number of such uses that had ceased in the European Union and from table B a number of countries in which process agents were no longer used.

115. The representative of Canada then introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision that had been prepared by Australia, Canada and the United States following the Open-ended Working Group’s meeting, which aimed to implement the Panel’s recommendations. As recommended by the Panel the draft decision would effect a number of changes to tables A and B of decision X/14, would request that parties repo rt specific applications for which they used ozone-depleting substances as process agents and wo uld clarify a number of issues for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund.

116. The parties approved the draft decision for further consideration during the high-level segment. 

## XI. Special situation of Haiti

117. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision XX II/[O], on the special situation of Haiti (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3). He recalled that it had been discussed at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and forwarded for further discussion at the current meeting. The decision called upon parties to assist Haiti in implementing the Montreal Protocol following the earthquake that had afflicted the country in January 2010 and continued to have significant adverse effects on its social and economic situation.

118. One representative said that he would like to di scuss certain minor issues with the proponents of the decision. It was accordingly agreed that interested parties would hold informal consultations.

119. Following those consultations the representative of Saint Lucia introduced a conference room paper containing a revised version of the draft decision, which the parties approved for further consideration during th e high-level segment. 

## XII. Compliance and data reporting issues
A. Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depl eting substances relative to compliance

120. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision XXII/[P], on the treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances relative to compliance (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3). He recalled that the draft decision had been discussed at th e thirtieth meeting of the Open-e nded Working Group and forwarded for further discussion at the curren t meeting. It was agreed that interested parties would hold informal consultations on the draft decision.

121. Following those consultations the representative of the European Union introduced a conference room paper containing a revised version of the draft decision, which the parties approved for further consideration during the high-level segment.


### B. Presentation on and consideration of the work and recommended decisions of the Implementation Committee

122. In the absence of Mr. Ezzat Lewis (Egypt), Pr esident of the Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol, Ms. Elisabeth Munzert (Germany), Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee, reported on the work of the Committee’s forty-fifth meeting, which took place on 4 an d 5 November 2010. The full report of the meeting was available in English only on the Ozone Secretariat’s portal for paperless meetings.

123. The Committee, she said, was very pleased with the excellent progress by parties in meeting their data reporting and phase-out obligations under the Protocol. The draft decisions that the Committee had approved for consideration by the Meeting of the Parties were contained in a conference room paper and reflected the Committee’s work at its forty-fifth meeting. That work had been immensely assisted by the representatives of the Multilateral Fund and its implementing agencies, including the Chair of the Fund’s Executiv e Committee, and the Ozone Secretariat.

124. She then outlined the seven draft decisions approved by the Committee for consideration by the Meeting of the Parties. The first, on data repo rting, listed five parties that had yet to report ozone-depleting substance consumption and production data for 2009 in accordance with Article 7 of the Protocol. Those five parties were Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Nauru and Qatar. She noted that as only five parties had not yet reported their data the rate of reporting was very high, with 191 of 196 parties having submitted their 2009 data. She alsoUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

15 noted that 68 parties had reported data for 2009 by 30 June 2010 in accordan ce with decision XV/15, observing that such early submission of data was exceptionally helpful to the Committee’s work. It was extremely encouraging that over the period 1991–2008 all parties had complied with their data-reporting obligations under the Protocol.

125. Turning to the reported data she observed that many parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 had already succeeded in phasing out the consumption of many oz one-depleting substances in advance of the 1 January 2010 de adline, meaning that there was a hi gh degree of confidence that the 2010 phase-out targets woul d be successfully attained.

126. Most of the draft decisions, she noted, pertained to the compliance status of particular parties. The draft decisions on Saudi Arabia and Vanuatu r ecorded those parties’ n on-compliance with their phase-out obligations for CFCs. In both cases the Committee had considered the circumstances that had led to the state of non-compliance and examined the action plans that the parties had submitted to the Committee to demonstrate how they intended to return to compliance. The Committee looked forward to both parties’ prompt return to compliance, and would monitor their progress carefully during future meetings.

127. The draft decisions on the Republic of Korea an d Singapore recorded that each had fallen into a state of non-compliance because they had engaged in trade of HCFCs and methyl bromide, respectively, with non-parties to amendments to the Protocol. The Committee had carefully reviewed both parties’ circumstances, and in particular any measures taken by them to control exports of ozone-depleting substances, and would continue to monitor their progress. In the case of the recommended decision on the Republic of Korea, she noted that the Committee had inserted text to allow the party to continue to trade in HCFCs with parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol.

128. One draft decision concerned exports of HCFCs to Kazakhstan, the only State classified as a party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that was also a State not party to the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments. Kazakhstan had not ratified the Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments, and it was therefore considered a non-party to the Protocol under the provisions of the Montreal Protocol governing trad e in HCFCs. The Committee, mindful that Kazakhstan would not be in a position to trade in ozone-depleting substances, particularly HCFCs, with parties to the Protocol, and also to alert parties to their legal obligations, had decided to recommend that the parties should adopt a draft decision urging Kazakhstan to ratif y, approve or accede to all amendments to the Protocol, to enable the party both to engage in trade with parties to the Protocol and to phase out the ozone-depleting substances listed in those amendments.

129. Another draft decision was a standard one by wh ich the Committee reported on the number of parties that had established systems for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances, as required of all parties to the Montreal Amendm ent. The Committee was pleased to learn that just five parties to the Amendment had yet to implement licensing systems, including two that had only just ratified it. A further 12 parties who had not ratified the Amendment had nevertheless established licensing systems, leaving just eight parties to the Protocol without such systems.

130. The draft decisions, she said, illustrated the different stages of the Protocol’s non-compliance procedure. It was worth remembering that the ozone community had built a flexible, sophisticated and successfully functioning compliance system that was internationally regarded with respect and as a model to be emulated under other agreements. It was important never to be complacent, however, particularly just a few months away from beginning to receive parties’ ozone-depleting substance data for 2010 and checking those data to confirm whether parties had managed to achieve the Protocol’s milestone for phasing-out most categories of ozone-depleting substances by 1 January 2010.

131. She highlighted an exchange of views between members of the Committee on future cases of potential non-compliance with the Protocol. Committee members had expressed concern that some countries might be unable to get their phase-out plans approved by the applicable deadlines and might as a result fall into non-compliance with the provisions of the Protocol. They had also said that there was a need to ensure the availability of alterna tives, to strengthen trade regulations, to assess how efficiently licensing systems we re being implemented and to assess feedstock uses of carbon tetrachloride. The Committee had agreed that the Pres ident would bring those views to the attention of the Meeting of the Parties.

132. In conclusion, she thanked her fellow Committee me mbers, on the President’s behalf, for their hard work, support and dedication in helping him to carry out his duties.

133. In the ensuing discussion the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya voiced concern that his country was listed as having not reported data when it had in fact done so. He explained that he hadUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

16 the data on his person and would submit it to the Se cretariat officials present at the current meeting to avoid it being lost a second time. He also called for his country to be permitted further time to use methyl bromide, given the paucity of alternatives available.

134. The representative of Brazil drew attention to wh at he said were errors in the documentation before the parties regarding imports to his country of carbon tetrachloride and methyl bromide. He explained that the carbon tetrachlori de had been intended for feedstoc k use and the methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment use. Noting that neither of those uses was regulated under the Montreal Protocol, he said that his country’s data for 2009 should be revised accordingly.

135. Following Ms. Munzert’s presentation and the en suing discussion the parties approved the draft decisions submitted by the Committee for further consideration during the high-level segment.



## XIII. Other matters

A. Halons in airframes

136. The representative of the United States introduc ed a conference room paper containing a draft decision prepared by his country recognizing the work by the International Civil Aviation Organization in evaluating the way forward in moving away from the use of halons in civil aviation. The parties approved the draft decision, as orally amended, for further consideration during the high-level segment. 

### B. Information documents submitted by the United States of America

137. The Co-Chair drew attention to documents UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/INF/7–10, which had been submitted by the United States, noting that they woul d be referred to during in formal discussions and would not come before the parties in plenary session. 

### C. Import of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by Kazakhstan pending its ratification of the amendments to the Montreal Protocol

138. The representative of Kazakhstan outlined his country ’s status in respect of ratifications of the Protocol and its amendments, saying that it was doing its best to reduce its use of ozone-depleting substances and to ratify all amendments. It was hoped that the Montreal and Copenhagen Amendments would be ratified by the end of 2010, with the Be ijing Amendment to follow swiftly thereafter. He expressed the hope that, given his country’s efforts to comply with the Protocol, the parties would support its request to be permitted to continue to import HCFCs.

139. The representative of Kazakhstan introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on an application by his country to trade in HCFCs with parties to the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 2011. A number of representatives said that they were unable to support the decision in its current form. The parties accordingly agreed that an informal group would meet to discuss the draft decision further in an effort to reach consensus.

140. Following those consultations it was agreed that the draft decision submitted by Kazakhstan would not be approved for further consideration during the high-level segment. 

## Part Two: High-level segment
I. Opening of the high-level segment

141. The high-level segment of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties began at 10.15 a.m. on Thursday, 11 November, with an opening ceremony facilitated by Mr. Paul Horwitz, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretaria t, who served as master of ceremonies.

142. Opening statements were delivered by Mr. Mi chael Church, President of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol; th e Executive Secretary; and Mr. Trairong Suwankiri, Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand.

143. In his statement, the President welcomed the repr esentatives to Thailand, expressing thanks to that country’s Government for agreeing to host the meeting at short notice and to UNEP for facilitating the administrative and logistical arrangements. The many successes of the Montreal Protocol could be attributed to the parties and other experts involved. In that regard, he expressed thanks to the Protocol’s assessment panels and national ozone officers and to the Ozone Secretariat, singling out the Executive Secretary for especial praise. During Mr. González’s tenure, the Protocol’sUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

17 achievements had grown in depth and consistency. Accordingly, the Bureau had endorsed and recommended to the parties a proposal to upgrade the post of Executive Secr etary to the level of Assistant-Secretary-General of the United Nations, a level commensurate with the Protocol’s standing as the most successful negotiated multilateral environmental agreement.

144. He recalled that the decisions adopted by the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties had been implemented and follow-up actions pursued; decisions on compliance had been particularly emphasized, as a small number of parties had fallen short of their obligations under the Protocol. He welcomed the constructive approach taken by the Implementation Committee in such cases and called for it to continue. He congratulated those parties that had completed ratification of all amendments to the Protocol and urged those that had not to do so promptly. He welcomed the vitality of the Protocol’s financial mechanism, saying that the terms of reference for the replenishment of the Fund should include all possible elements that would enable pa rties operating under para graph 1 of Article 5 to implement and comply with their obligations under the Protocol for the period 2012–2014. In conclusion, he said that it had been an honour to se rve as the President of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties and thanked all those who had assisted him during his term of office.

145. The Executive Secretary, in his statement, noted that 17 years earlier Thailand had hosted the Fifth Meeting of the Parties, and he thanked the Government for facilitating the hosting of the present meeting. Looking back over those 17 years, he pointed out that many undertakings that had been merely ideas on paper had borne fruit and become reality, which was a testament to the vision, commitment and dedication of the parties to the Montreal Protocol. In that period, the Protocol had achieved universal ratification, with the highest numb er of parties of any international treaty, a feat unparalleled in the United Nations system. It demonstrated that global efforts could succeed given sufficient political will and e ffective governance structures.

146. He noted that the current meeting was taking place after the final phase-out date for most ozone-depleting substances – 1 January 2010 – and acknowledged the hard work by parties, particularly those operating under pa ragraph 1 of Article 5, to make that historic milestone a reality. In recent years, the parties had increasingly emphasized the additional environmental benefits arising out of their actions to protect the ozone layer, leading the international community to view the Protocol as a treaty that both protected the ozone layer and made a significant contribution to protecting the global climate system.

147. In closing, he paid tribute to departed and departing members of the ozone community. He invited the parties to observe a minute of silence in memory of Mr. Madhava Sarma, Mr. Yuichi Fujimoto and Mr. Aharon Serry. Mr. Sarma had se rved as Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat from 1991 to 2000 and as a senior expert member of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; Mr. Fujimoto had been a senior expert member of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and a member of the Solvents Technical Options Committee; and Mr. Serry had been the ozone layer protection focal point for Israel. He then offered praise for Mr. Jan van der Leun and Mr. José Pons Pons, who were stepping down as Co-Chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, respectively, for their long and outstanding service to the Montreal Protocol.

148. Following the Executive Secretar y’s statement Ms. Jessica Eriyo, Minister of Environment of Uganda, presented, on behalf of the African grou p, a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Rajendra Shende, head of the OzonAction Branch of the UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, who would be retiring in the near future after serving in that capacity since 1992.

149. In his statement, Mr. Suwankiri welcomed the re presentatives to Bangkok and to Thailand. He praised the work of the Protocol over the 17 years since Thailand had hosted the Fifth Meeting of the Parties, lauding the successful efforts to phase out the use of CFCs by 2010 and to achieve universal ratification, and drew attention to a number of na tional-level efforts to phase out ozone-depleting substances. He said that the task of phasing out HCFCs was arduous because alternatives and financing were both limited; he expressed confidence, however, that those limitations could be overcome if parties worked together in a spirit of cooperation, with support provided by partners, industry bodies and others.

150. In conclusion, he looked ahead to the deliberations on a number of items on the parties’ agenda, including the terms of reference for a stud y on the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund and possible amendments to the Montreal Protocol. He called upon parties to strike a balance in their deliberations between economic development an d environmental protection, suggesting that it behoved them to protect the environment and habitat, which was a legacy inherited from ancestors and bequeathed to future generations. He declared the high-level segment officially open at 10.55 a.m.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

18 151. Following those opening statem ents, the Executive Secretary and Mr. Suwankiri presented Mr. van der Leun with a certificate of recognition.

152. The parties then enjoyed a cultural event, co nsisting of the screening of a message from Pakistani schoolchildren on ozone layer preservation and a performance by Thai dancers. 

## II. Organizational matters

A. Election of officers for the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties

153. 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 Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol: President: Mr. Steven Reeves (United Kingdom Western European and others of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) group
Vice-Presidents: Mr. Hassen Hanna chi (Tunisia) African group Mr. Abid Ali (Pakistan) Asian and Pacific group Ms. Sonja Ruzin (Serbia) Eastern European group Rapporteur: Mr. Michael Chur ch (Grenada) Latin American and Caribbean
group 

### B. Adoption of the agenda of th e Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties

154. The following agenda for the high-level segment was adopted on the basis of the provisional agenda contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/1:

1. Opening of the high-level segment:
(a) Statements by representative(s) of the Government of Thailand;
(b) Statements by representative(s) of the United Nations;
(c) Statement by the President of the Tw enty-First Meeting of the Parties.

2. Organizational matters:
(a) Election of officers for the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties;
(b) Adoption of the agenda of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties;
(c) Organization of work;
(d) Credentials of representatives.

3. Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the amendments to the Montreal Protocol.

4. Presentation by the assessment panels on their quadrennial assessment.

5. Presentation by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund on the work of the Executive Committee, the Multila teral Fund Secretariat and the Fund’s implementing agencies.

6. Statements by heads of delegations.

7. Report by the co-chairs of the preparatory segment and consideration of the decisions recommended for adoption by the Twenty -Second Meeting of the Parties.

8. Dates and venue for the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties.

9. Other matters.

10. Adoption of decisions by the Twenty -Second Meeting of the Parties.

11. Adoption of the report of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties.

12. Closure of the meeting. 

### C. Organization of work

155. The parties agreed to follow their customary procedures.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

19 

### D. Credentials of representatives

156. The Bureau of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol approved the credentials of the representatives of 87 of th e 140 parties represented. The Bureau provisionally approved the participation of other parties on the understanding that they would forward their credentials 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. The Bureau also recalled that under the rules of procedure credentials had to be issued either by a Head of State or Government or by a minister for foreign affairs or, in the case of a regional economic integr ation organization, by the competent authority of that organization. The Bureau further recalled that representatives of parties not presenting credentials in the correct form could be precluded from full par ticipation in the meetings of the parties, including the right to vote.



## III. Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the amendments to the Montreal Protocol

157. The President drew attention to the draft decisi on on the status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the amendments to the Montreal Protocol contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3, which was a standard decision of the kind that had been taken in the past to record the status of ratificati ons and to encourage further ratifications. 

## IV. Presentation by the assessm ent panels on their quadrennial assessment

158. Mr. Lambert Kuijpers, Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, gave a presentation on the overview assessment of the Panel. He mentioned that the 2010 assessment report would be based on the technical options committees’ 2010 assessment reports, to be finalized by the end of 2010, and a selection of relevant topics from the Panel’s assessment reports published in 2009 and 2010. The Panel’s 2010 assessment report therefore could not be finalized before the beginning of 2011, and he could therefore present only a preliminary report of the main issues dealt with in the reports. He then continued, presenting separate lists of issues that would be dealt with in the six technical options committee 2010 assessment reports. He concluded by presenting one of the issues that were be dealt with separately in the Pane l’s 2010 assessment report, the classification of global-warming potentials on a scale.

159. M r. A. R. Ravishankara, Co-Chair of the Scien tific Assessment Panel, re ported on the progress and executive summary of the Panel’s 2010 scientific assessment of ozone depletion. He discussed the terms of reference for the assessment process an d the structure and development process of the assessment report, which was the culmination of ne arly two years of work and had featured the participation of over 300 scientists from 34 countrie s. The full assessment report would be delivered to the parties in early 2011.

160. The abundances of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere were responding as expected to the control measures of the Montreal Protocol. Total chlorine from ozone-depleting substances continued to decline in both the lower atmosphere and the stratosphere. CFCs (not methyl chloroform) were currently the main contributors to the chlorine decline. Carbon tetrachlor ide (in the troposphere) was declining more slowly than expected, but the exact cause was uncertain (the decline was not a result of a lifetime error). Total bromine from ozone -depleting substances was also declining in the lower atmosphere and no longer increasing in the stratosphere. For the first time, the global atmospheric abundance of bromine from halons had stopped increasing, and halon-1211 had actually declined. Abundances of most HFCs and HCFCs, however, were growing in the atmosphere, and some HCFCs (e.g., HCFC-22, HCFC-142b) had increased faster than expected during the past four
years.
161. The ozone layer and climate change were intr icately coupled, and climate change would become increasingly important to the future ozone layer. Increasing abundances of radiatively important gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane, were expected significantly to affect future stratospheric ozone through effects on temperatur e, winds and chemistry. While for the coming few decades the decline in ozone-deple ting substances would dominate the recovery of the ozone layer, climate change and other factors were expected to become increasingly important to the ozone layer over time. Ozone levels globally and at middle latitudes might even become larger than those observed before 1980.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

20 162. The Antarctic ozone hole continued to be observed during the austral spring. The ozone hole was projected to recover later in the century than any other region of the globe. The Antarctic ozone hole was much less influenced by climate change than other areas of the globe, and ozone-depleting substances would be the primary determinants of when the ozone hole would heal. The control of ozone-depleting substances by the Montreal Protocol had protected the globally averaged ozone layer from much higher levels of depletion. Globally, the ozone layer was projected to recover to its 1980 level before the middle of th e twenty-first century.

163. The ozone layer and surface ultraviolet radiation (UV) were responding as expected to the ozone-depleting substance reductions achieved under the Protocol. Global surface UV levels had not increased significantly because ozone losses had been limited by the Protocol. In the absence of the Protocol surface UV levels would have been large. Factors other than stratospheric ozone would determine surface UV levels in the future.

164. The control of ozone-depleting substances by the Montreal Protocol had had co-benefits for climate. The decrease in ozone-depl eting substances achieved under the Protocol was equivalent to a reduction of carbon dioxide that was five times larger than the target for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Projections of HFC growth scenarios that assumed no controls suggested that by 2050 global-warming-potential-weighted emissions of HFCs could be comparable to those of CFCs at their peak in 1988.

165. In addition to a discussion of the relationship of ozone-depleting substances to ozone, and of ozone to surface UV radiation and climate, the Pa nel provided additional information on a few topics. The accelerated HCFC phase-out agreed to in 2007 was projected to reduce ozone depletion and to help reduce climate forcing. New fluorocarbons, suggested as possible replacements for HCFCs and HFCs, potent greenhouse gases, were less potent greenhouse gases. Nitrous oxide was known both to deplete global ozone and to warm the climate. Th e current ODP-weighted an thropogenic emission of nitrous oxide was larger than that of any ozone-dep leting substance. Deliberate large injections of sulphur-containing compounds into the stratosphere (geoengineering) would alter the radiative, dynamical and chemical state of the stratosphere and could be expected to have substantial unintended effects on stratospheric ozone levels.

166. He also discussed how the Antarctic ozone hole had had a number of impacts on climate. The impact of the Antarctic ozone hole on surface climate had become more evident, causing, in particular, wind pattern changes in the Southern Hemisphere lower atmosphere. Because of these changes, for example, the surface climate had warmed over th e Antarctic Peninsula and cooled over the high plateau.

167. Finally, options for further limiting future emissions of ozone-depleting substances could advance recovery dates by a few years. The impact of those potential emission reductions on future ozone levels, however, would be much smaller than what had already been accomplished by the Montreal Protocol.

168. Ms. Janet Bornman, Co-Chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, gave a presentation on the environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interaction with climate change. She began by noting that the environmental effects of ozone depletion and their strong interactions with climate change had a wide range of conse quences for life on earth. Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, however, had meant that large in creases in the type of UV radiation that caused sunburn had been avoided. Currently, measurements at middle latitudes were showing as much as a 5 per cent increase in the so-called UV-B radiation range (280-315 nm) relative to 1980, and in areas of significant ozone depletion, large increases that were sufficient to cause sunburn. At the same time, there was uncertainty regarding th e future of sun-burning UV radi ation because penetration of UV radiation to the Earth’s surface depended not only on the stratospheric ozone layer but also on climate change factors such as clouds, aer osols and land-use changes, which led to increased exposure to UV radiation. Cloud cover was predicted to increase at high latitudes; as UV radiation was normally relatively low at such latitudes, that would make it more difficult to achieve optimal exposure times for sufficient vitamin D production. At low latitude s, where UV radiation was relatively high, cloud cover was likely to decrease, which might resu lt in additional sun-burning UV radiation.

169. In areas of high levels of UV radiation th ere was an increased likelihood of eye-related diseases (e.g., cataracts and melanoma of the eye) and skin cancer. Other effects of UV radiation included decreased immunity to some diseases, although they also included increased vitamin D production, which had beneficial effects for human health, including bone structure and resistance to certain diseases. The combined effects on human health of climate change factors and solar UV radiation, which might exacerbate some diseases, were being studied.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

21 170. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems were also sensitive to the interplay of increased levels of UV-B radiation and climate change factors. Decreased plant produc tivity in areas of large ozone depletion had been observed and increased ecosyst em modifications and acclim ation to UV radiation and climate were expected. Terrestrial ecosystems experienced both direct damage (e.g., reduced growth and impaired protective mechanisms) and indirect effects (e.g., modification of plant pests due to altered plant chemistry induced by UV-B radia tion). Climate change and UV radiation were likely to combine to increase the spread of plant pests in some areas with increasing temperature, rainfall and carbon dioxide levels, while extreme drought conditio ns and increased UV levels would reduce plant growth and survival.

171. Increased exposure to UV radia tion from the predicted reduced cloud cover at low latitudes, coupled with deforestation and land-use changes, would promote the decay of dead plant material (breakdown of the material by UV radiation) and thus affect nutrient cycling and carbon dioxide loss to the atmosphere. Increased UV radiation and cl imate change were key players in accelerating the movement of carbon (known as carbon cycling) through terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

172. The negative effects of climate change and UV radiation on aquatic organisms decreased the uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxid e by the oceans, thus reducing th eir capacity as carbon sinks. At the same time, climate-related increases in the run- off of organic material from land to oceans and the UV-induced breakdown of such materi al increased the emission of ca rbon dioxide from the oceans. As the oceans took up carbon dioxide the acidity (low pH) of the water rose, which in turn decreased skeletal formation in cal cified organisms, making them more vulnerable to UV-B radiation. Climate-related increases in run-off from land also increased nitrogen input into the oceans. The increasing production of nitrous oxide enhanced not only ozone depletion, but also the greenhouse effect.

173. In the troposphere at low and middle latitudes, the projected increase in ozone concentrations due to human activity had implications for human health and the environment, further compounded by changes in climate and pollutants that would modify air quality. Since UV radiation initiated the production of hydroxyl radicals, which acted as atmospheric cleaning agents, UV was a controlling factor in photochemical smog. With ozone recovery and a resulting decrease in UV radiation, there was potential for increased photochemical smog, with negative effects on human health and the environment.

174. Based on current understanding, it appeared that the breakdown products of HCFCs and HFCs would probably pose only a negligible risk to human health and the environment. That included the breakdown of CFC replacements into trifluoroacetic acid.

175. Research on the effects of climate change and UV radiation on construction materials such as plastics and wood had shown increased damage by UV radiation in combination with high temperatures, humidity and atmospheric pollutants. Us e of a range of stabilizers as protective agents, however, had helped to offset some of the degradation of those materials. The use of plastic nanocomposites and wood-plastic composites increas ed the service lifetimes of materials used outdoors.

176. The environmental effects assessment had show n that current and future climate change interactions with UV radiation a dded to the uncertainty of many aspects of environmental impacts on human health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, cycling of nutrients, air quality, materials and transport of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other compounds. Environmental climate-driven changes in UV radiation might be of such a magnitude that protective strategies to adapt to UV radiation would be ineffective or only partially effective.

177. Following the presentations one representative said that, while his party appreciated the efforts of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to bring some clarity to what parties meant when referring to high-global-warming-potential and lo w-global-warming-potential alternatives, the Panel’s proposed classification of alternatives according to their global-warming potential was subjective. He proposed that the Panel should consider a sectoral identification of technically feasible alternatives with a view to maximizing the climate bene fits of the accelerated HCFC phase-out.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

22 

## V. Presentation by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund on the work of the Executive Committee, the Multilateral Fund Secretariat and the Fund’s implementing agencies

178. Mr. Javier Camargo, chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, delivered a presentation on the Committee’s activities since the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties, encompassing the fifty-ninth, six tieth and sixty-first meetings of the Committee. He summarized the report contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/8, including in respect of the significant progress the Committee had made in developing funding polices that would assist parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to phase out HCFCs.

179. With regard to CFCs, the Committee had decided to allow the submission of any remaining tranches of national phase-out plans and terminal phase-out plans for CFCs on the understanding that the parties concerned would consider implementing activities to sustain zero consumption of CFCs and other activities to facilitate the phase-out of HCFCs. With the exception of three countries, the funding of tranches for national phase-out plan s had ceased and any remaining funding was being integrated into HCFC phase-out management plans. The era of funding CFC phase-out had drawn to a close, but its legacy would underpi n the efforts of parties as they rose to the challenge of HCFC phase-out.

180. The Executive Committee had undertaken extensive discussions on funding and policies for HCFC phase-out, while ensuring that the full spirit of decision XIX/6, which included consideration of the climate impacts of technologies replacing HCFC s, was taken into account when developing and implementing phase-out projects. Most of the infrastructure to enable parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to initiate their HCFC ph ase-out activities was now in place, and guidelines had been developed setting out the criteria for funding. The Committee included consideration of additional funding for the introduction of alternatives to HCFCs with low global-warming potential rather than conversion to technologies that might be less expensive but used hydrocarbons with high global-warming potential, marking a significant chan ge in the Multilateral Fund’s approach. He also outlined a number of other policy issues related to HCFC phase-out, as detailed in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/8. HCFC production sector guidelines would be finalized at the sixty-second meeting of the Executive Committee.

181. The Executive Committee had been particularly co ncerned to ensure that funds were available for every party operating under paragraph 1 of Artic le 5 to receive assistance for projects to comply with the 2013 and 2015 control measures. To keep the budget within the remaining funds available for the 2009–2011 replenishment, the Committee had reallocated to the 2012–2014 triennium $22,190,000 of HCFC investment project funding in the agencies’ business plans for non-low-volume-consuming parties. The Committee had approved five HCFC phase-out management plans and a total of 246 additional projects and activities with a planned phase-out of 5,641 ODP-tonnes of controlled ozone-depleting substances. The total funds approved amounted to over $96.5 million. In addition, $20,000 had been provided as emergency assistance for institutional strengthening in Haiti following the devastation caused by the 2010 earthquake there.

182. Significant progress had been made regarding the outstanding contributions of the Russian Federation. The Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund had been informed that the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation had taken steps to reso lve the issue, and dial ogue was continuing.

183. In summary, he said that 2010 had particular significance for the Montreal Protocol’s control measures for CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride. In addition to phasing out methyl chloroform and methyl bromide by 2015, the par ties faced the challenge of accelerat ed phase-out of HCFC, but the work undertaken to date placed the goals of the 2013 freeze and the 2015 10 per cent reduction firmly within reach.

184. He then spoke on behalf of the implementing agencies. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) was operating a programme w ith a total value of $525 million in over 100 countries, contributing, through the Multilateral Fund, to the phase-out of more than 64,700 tonnes per year of ozone-depleting substances. HCFC phase-out management plans and sector plans for 11 countries had been submitted to the Executive Committee, and were under development in another 20 countries where UNDP was the lead agency. UNDP had made progress with approved pilot and validation projects in the foam and refrigeration sectors in four countries, which aimed to develop replicable low-carbon options for replacing HCFCs. Work on ozone-depleting substance waste destruction projects was continuing in five countries. The Carbon Finance Unit of UNDP hadUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

23 worked with Montreal Protocol bodies to consider wa ys to gain access to carbon markets and design a facility to finance the climate benefits of HCFC phase-out and destruction of banks of ozone-depleting substances.

185. UNEP was currently working with 77 countries as lead agency and 24 countries as cooperating agency in the preparatio n of HCFC phase-out management pl ans. Under the Compliance Assistance Programme, UNEP had been providing support to Governments in achieving compliance in 2010, meeting their data reporting commitments under Article 7 and promoting mechanisms to prevent illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances. UNEP had also been prioritizing assistance to ensure that all countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 had HCFC licensing systems in place, and had been active in facilitating network meetings and workshops to address current issues and coordination between national ozone units and climate change focal points.

186. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) had recruited 11 national programme officers to assist in the delivery and monitoring of projects. UNIDO had had funds approved for HCFC sector-based investment activities for 15 countries. Two HCFC phase-out management plans had been approved and a further 40 were being developed. As part of its aim to take a more holistic approach to the implementation of its projects, UNIDO had established a carbon working group to analyse possible options for attaining carbon credits, and other sources of funding for the climate benefits of HCFC phase-out and destruction of banks of ozone-depleting substances were being investigated. UNIDO had submitted a large array of projects for consideration by the Executive Committee at its sixty-second meeting.

187. The World Bank reported that, through support to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, over 300,000 tonnes of consumption and production of ozone-depleting potential had been eliminated, representing 68 per cent of the total phase-out achieved under the Multilateral Fund, with only 44 per cent of the total resources. That cost-effective phase-out was linked to the innovative delivery mechanisms of World Bank projects. The Bank had commenced work with some countries on HCFC phase-out management plans and sector plans, including those with climate linkages and those that addressed the wider environmental impact of projects, in accordance with decision XIX/6.

188. The parties took note of the information presented. 

## VI. Statements by heads of delegation

189. During the high-level segment, statements were made by heads of delegation of the following parties, listed in the order in which they spoke: Grenada, Japan, United States, Indonesia, Uganda, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Zimbabwe, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, United Kingdom (on behalf of the European Union), Belgium (on behalf of the European Union), Samoa, Serbia, India, Kenya, Mongolia, Malawi, Solomon Islands, Bahrain, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Micronesia (Federated States of), Angola, New Zealand, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Bhutan, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Cook Islands, Malaysia, Iraq, Nepal, Zambia, Marshall Islands, Bangladesh, Niger, Brazil, China, Mexico, South Africa, Pakistan, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liberia, Mauritius, Philippines.

190. A statement was made by a representative of th e secretariats of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Moveme nts of Hazardous Wastes and Thei r Disposal, of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior In formed Consent Procedure for Certai n Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, and of the Stockholm Conv ention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Statements were also made by representatives of Greenpeace International, the Inte rnational Institute of Refrigeration, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Customs Organization and the Technology, Education, Research and Rehab ilitation for the Environment Policy Centre.

191. Many representatives congratulated the members of the bureau on their election and all thanked the Government and people of Thailand for their hospitality in hosting the current meeting. Many thanked UNEP and the Ozone Secretariat, th e Multilateral Fund secretariat and implementing agencies, donor countries, the assessment panels, international organizations and other stakeholders for their roles in ensuring the success of th e meeting and the succes sful development and implementation of the Protocol.

192. Many representatives outlined their countries’ efforts to fulfil their obligations under the Protocol. Two announced that their Governments expected to phase out the use of CFCs in metered-dose inhalers ahead of the Protocol’s target date of 2013. Achievements included the phase-out of the production and consumption of controlled substances, which in a notable number of cases had been achieved ahead of the deadlines under the Protocol; the promotion of alternativeUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

24 substances and technologies, including climate-frie ndly technologies; training and capacity-building; awareness-raising through the mass media and e ducational institutions; and the enhancement of cooperation between government ministries, public and private stakeholders, the countries of the various regions and international organizations.

193. Representatives celebrated the success of the Mont real Protocol, including its achievement of universal ratification and the 2010 phase-out of most ozone-depleting substances, which demonstrated that global solutions could be found when all countries made determined efforts to implement internationally agreed protocols on global environmental problems. They also observed, however, that much remained to be done, including the reduc tion of methyl bromide use for quarantine and pre-shipment applications; the management and destruction of banks of ozone-depleting substances; combating illegal trade in ozone-depleting substan ces; and implementing the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs. Continued momentum was therefore needed to meet the remaining challenges.

194. Many representatives from parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 said that implementing the accelerated phase- out schedule for HCFCs would requ ire developed-country parties to fulfil their obligations to provide appropriate fi nancial and technical assi stance, capacity-building and technology transfer. Several stressed the need to provide financial and technical support to those industries that had already converted from CFCs to HCFCs and were being asked to undertake a second conversion to other climate-friendly techno logies. One representative suggested that storage facilities for ozone-depleting substances should be constructed in small island countries and that periodic shipments of those substances to the ne arest destruction facilities should be arranged. A number of representatives called for more anal yses and information on HCFC alternatives, emphasizing the need for effective and economi cally, technically and environmentally viable alternatives for use in developing countries.

195. Many representatives, in particular from small island developing States, highlighted the growing threats associated with climate change. Many supported taking steps under the Protocol to begin addressing HFCs, noting that their expanding use was due almost entirely to the Protocol’s controls on CFCs and HCFCs and that doing so would yield important climate benefits. Using the proven mechanisms of the Protocol would allow the parties to work synergistically with the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol on a matter of significant common concern. One representative expressed disappointment that the Multilateral Fund provided no funding for activities under the Protocol that provided climate benefits. A number of other representatives, however, said that the parties should not address HFCs, arguing, among other things, that doing so was beyond the scope of the Protocol; that it was important not to infringe upon or impede the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which already covered HFCs; that time, effort and resources would be better spent ensuring the success of the CFC and HCFC phase-outs; that HFCs were required to achieve the HCFC phase-out; and that proven, cost-effective and envir onmentally safe alternatives to HFCs were not available in all sectors.

196. Many representatives agreed that ensuring the environmentally sound management and destruction of the growing amount of ozone-depleting-substance wastes, including those contained in banks, would help efforts to protect the ozone layer and mitigate climate change. A number of representatives of developing countries said that they were hampered in their ability to deal with banks of ozone-depleting substances owing to a lack of equipment and financial resources and called upon the Multilateral Fund to provide assistance in that area.

197. Many representatives, from both developed and developing countries, said that financial and technical assistance and the effective functioning of the Multilateral Fund had played a major role in the success of the Protocol. Many said that it was important for developed-country parties to fulfil their obligations to provide approp riate technical assistance; adequate financial assistance through the Multilateral Fund to meet the agreed incremental costs of developing-country parties in their transition away from ozone-depleting substances; and technology transfer as provided for in the Protocol.

198. Many representatives said that institutional strengthening had played an important role in building the capacity of developing countries to implement the Protocol. They called for continued funding for institutional strength ening in 2011 and beyond, for the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs, eliminating consumption of methyl bromide, includ ing for quarantine and pre-shipment applications, and for tackling banks of obsolete ozone-depleting substances and illegal trade.

199. Many representatives expressed their appreciation for the long service and valuable work done by Mr. van der Leun. Many also paid tribute to the expertise, wisdom and generous spirit of Mr. Sarma, and expressed their condolences to his family at his passing.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

25 200. The representative of the secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions reported that the secretariats of the Montreal Protocol and the Basel and Stockholm conventions, together with the OzonAction prog ramme, were collaborating on an initiative for the destruction of ozone-depleting substances and persistent organic pollutants.

201. The representative of the International Institu te of Refrigeration, an intergovernmental organization, noted that many refrigerants were ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases. With demand for refrigeration expected to grow, in particular in developing countries, the Institute had developed a number of recommendations, including coordination between the Kyoto and Montreal protocols, improved design and maintenance of refrigeration equipment, continued development of alternatives and elimination of incentives for proj ects that used substances with high global-warming potential.

202. The representative of the World Customs Orga nization (WCO) outlined the efforts of his organization to combat illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances worldwide and the results achieved, warning that illegal trade was likely to grow as furt her bans came into effect . WCO would continue to work with UNEP to control such trade and to help parties to remain in compliance with their obligations under the Protocol.

203. Noting that the Scientific Assessment Panel had concluded that HFCs could erase all climate gains made to date, the representative of an international environmental non-governmental organization urged the parties to take action on HFCs. It was not necessary to amend the Protocol to do so, since its preamble provided clearly that pa rties should take appropriate measures to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects of human activities likely to modify the ozone layer. 

## VII. Report by the co-chairs of the preparatory segment and consideration of the decisions re commended for adoption by the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties

204. Reporting on the preparatory segm ent of the meetings, the Co-Chair said that much had been achieved during the preparatory segment through negotiations that were difficult but marked throughout by cooperation and compromise. He thanke d the parties for their great efforts, the contact group chairs for their leadership, the Secretariat for its excellent work and professionalism and the interpreters and other behind-the-scenes staff for making it possible for the parties to do their work.



## VIII. Dates and venue for the Twen ty-Third Meeting of the Parties

205. In his statement during the hi gh-level segment, the represen tative of Indonesia conveyed an offer by his Government to host the Twenty-Third Mee ting of the Parties. In the light of that offer the parties agreed that the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties would take place in 2011 in Bali, Indonesia, at a time to be determined.



## IX. Other matters
Declaration on the global transiti on away from hydrochlorofluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons

206. The representative of Mexico in troduced a declaration on the global transition away from HCFCs and CFCs, reporting that it had been signed by 91 parties. He then read the declaration, which is set out in annex III to the present report, as su bmitted and without formal editing, and invited other parties to sign it.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

26 

## X. Adoption of decisions by the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties

207. The Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties decides:


## XXII/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the Londo n, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Montreal Protocol

1. To note with satisfaction the large number of countries which 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 at 1 November 2010, 195 parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 192 parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 181 parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and 165 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;



## XXII/2: Terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol

1. To approve the terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol contained in the annex to the present decision; 2. To set up a steering panel of eight members to supervise the evaluation process, to select an evaluator to carry out the evaluation, to act as a point of contact for the evaluator during the evaluation and to ensure that the terms of refere nce are implemented in the most appropriate manner possible; 3. To select from among the parties to the Montreal Protocol the following eight parties to serve as the members of the steering panel: Austri a, Canada, Colombia, India, Japan, Nigeria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Maced onia and the United States of Amer ica, thereby ensuring that the appointed panel has equal representation of individuals selected by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol and parties not so operating; 4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to fi nalize the procedure for the selection of the qualified external and independent evaluator: on the basis of submitted proposals, the Secretariat shall prepare a shortlist of qualified app licants and facilitate the review of relevant proposals by the steering panel; 5. To instruct the steering panel to organize its meetings with the assistance of the Ozone Secretariat with dates and venues selected, as far as possible, to coincide with other Montreal Protocol meetings, thereby reducing related costs; 6. To approve a total budget for the evaluation of up to 200,000 United States dollars, with the amount of $70,000 to start the application bidding process to come from the 2011 budget of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on the understanding that the parties will decide in 2011 on the funding source for the balance of the budget; 7. To ensure that the final report and recommendations of the evaluator are made available to parties for consideration at the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties;



## Annex to decision XXII/2

Terms of reference for an evaluation of th e financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol

A. Preamble

1. The achievements of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol have often been recognized by the international community, and there is no doubt that the mechanism is both aUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

27 cornerstone of the Protocol and an outstanding exam ple of multilateral cooperation. Indeed, by the end of 2009 the Multilateral Fund had approved projects to phase out the consumption and production of about 458,000 ozone-depleting-potential (ODP) tonnes of ozone-depleting substances in developing countries, and over 85 per cent of this amount had already been phased out. As a result of those activities, nearly all parties opera ting under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol are in compliance with their obligations under the Protocol, while most of their consumption and production of ozone-depleting substances, except for hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), has been eliminated. 2. The financial mechanism was established by Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol to provide financial and technical cooperation to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to enable their compliance with the Protocol’s cont rol measures. The Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol recognized the need to review periodically the operation of the financial mechanism to ensure maximum effectiveness in pursuing the goals of the Montreal Protocol. Since its inception in 1991, the mechanism, which includes the Multilateral Fund, an Executive Committee, a Secretariat and implementing and bilateral agencies, has been evaluated twice by the parties, in 1994–1995 and 2003-2004. 3. The year 2010 is a landmark year in the history of both the Montreal Protocol and the financial mechanism, as virtually all remaining production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons and carbon tetrachloride was to be phased out by 1 January 2010. In the light of this major milestone, it is particularly timely for the parties to the Protocol to take a retrospective look at the achievements of the financial mechanism, the challe nges that it has faced, the manner in which they have been addressed and the lessons that have been learned, with a view to ensuring that the mechanism is well placed to address the challenges of the future effectively. Those challenges include phasing out HCFCs and the remaining consumption of methyl bromide and implementing ozone-depleting substance destruction pilot projects. 

### B. Purpose
4. In the light of the above, an d considering that it has been more than five years since the last evaluation was conducted, the Twenty-Second Meetin g of the Parties decided that it was appropriate to evaluate and review the financial mechanism with a view to ensuring its effective functioning in meeting the needs of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and parties not so operating in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol. The study should be based on the present terms of reference, defined by the scope described below and carried out by an independent evaluator and completed by May 2012, in time for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at its thirty-second meeting. 

### C. Scope
5. In carrying out the study, the evaluator should consider the results, policy framework, organizational structure and lessons learned associ ated with the financial mechanism as follows:
(a) Results of the financial mechanism:
(i) Extent to which both investment and non-investment projects approved under the Multilateral Fund have contributed to phasing out ozone-depleting substances in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in accordance with Montreal Protocol compliance targets;
(ii) Total reductions of ozone-depleting s ubstances in ODP-tonnes and metric tonnes resulting from Multilateral Fund activities;
(iii) Analysis of other environmental and health co-benefits, including climate benefits, as well as adverse effects resulting from activities funded by the Multilateral Fund to phase out ozone-depleting substances;
(iv) Comparison of ozone-depleting substance phase-out planned in approved projects and ozone-depleting substance phase-out achieved;
(v) Comparison of planned cost-effectiveness of approved projects and actual cost-effectiveness;
(vi) Comparison of planned project implementation time and implementation time achieved;
(vii) Effectiveness of capacity-building provided, including institutional strengthening and compliance assistance;UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

28 (b) Policies and procedures:
(i) Effectiveness of timing between meetings, submission deadlines and reporting deadlines;
(ii) Effectiveness, consistency and efficien cy of procedures and practices to develop, review and approve project proposals under the Multilateral Fund;
(iii) Ability of the project and activity planning and implementation process to ensure compliance;
(iv) Effectiveness and efficiency of m onitoring, reporting procedures and practices;
(v) Ability and efficiency of internal evaluation and verification mechanisms to monitor and confirm results, including an analysis of existing databases;
(vi) Extent to which policies and procedures are adapted or improved based on experiences and relevant circumstances;
(c) Other issues:
(i) Review of the distribution of funding among regions where parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 are located, as well as between low-volume consuming countries and non-low-volume consuming countries; (ii) Extent to which programmes and projects approved under the financial mechanism have facilitated the implementation of the technology transfer provisions under Articles 10 and 10A of the Montreal Protocol and related decisions of the Parties, taking into account the geographical origin by region of technology provided in a representative sample of projects;
(d) Lessons learned:
(i) Lessons learned in view of the future challenges of the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund;
(ii) Lessons learned from other international environmental institutions and agreements. 

### D. Form and presentation of the study
6. The study shall be presented using a practical , easy-to-use and easy-to-read layout, and should include a comprehensive summary for policymakers of some 30 pages and a detailed index followed by the body of the study and its annexes.


### E. Conclusions and recommendations
7. In carrying out the study, the evaluator will identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with the financial mech anism and, where relevant, make recommendations suggesting possible improvements with regard to: results achieved; organizational effectiveness and decision-making processes; effec tiveness of technology transfer; information dissemination and capacity-building activities; cooperation with other organizations; and any other area of particular relevance.


### F. Sources of information

8. The Multilateral Fund Secretariat, the Ozon e Secretariat, the Executive Committee, the implementing and bilateral agencies, the Treasurer, ozone offices, recipient countries and companies are invited to cooperate with the evaluator and to provide all necessary information including information on cost-effectiveness. The Multilateral Fund Secretariat is invited to provide all necessary data related to the items listed above in paragraphs 5 (a) (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi). The evaluation should take into account the relevant decisions of the Meeting of the Parties and the Executive Committee. 9. The evaluator should widely consult releva nt persons and institutions and other relevant sources of information deemed useful.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

29 

### G. Time frame and milestones
10. The following table presents a tenta tive time frame and milestones for the study.

November 2010 Approval of the terms of reference by the Meeting of the Parties Selection of a steering panel by the Meeting of the Parties January 2011 Finalization of the criteria and procedur e for the selection of the qualified external and independent evaluator March 2011 Analysis of bids by the Ozone Secr etariat and, on the basis of the criteria, recommendations to steering panel Independent evaluator selected by the panel April 2011 Contract awarded Evaluator provides an inception report and meets the steering panel to discuss study modalities and details December 2011 Mid-term review: preliminary draft report submitted to and reviewed by the steering panel February 2012 Final draft report submitted to and reviewed by the steering panel May 2012 Final draft report submitted to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting September 2012 Final report submitted to th e Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties



## XXII/3: Terms of reference for the study on the 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol

Recalling the parties’ decisions on previous terms of reference for studies on the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, Recalling also the parties’ decisions on previous replenishments of the Multilateral Fund, 1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report for submission to the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Pa rties, and to present it through the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-first meeting, to enable the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on the appropriate level of the 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund; 2. That, in preparing the report referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Panel should take into account, among other things:
(a) All control measures and relevant decision s agreed upon by the parties to the Montreal Protocol and the Executive Committee, in partic ular those related to the special needs of low-volume- and very-low-volume-consuming countries, and decisions agreed upon by the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties and the Execu tive Committee at its sixty-first and sixty-second meetings insofar as those decisions will necessitate expenditure by the Multilateral Fund during the period 2012–2014;
(b) The need to allocate resources to enable all parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol to maintain compliance with Articles 2A –2E, 2G and 2I of the Protocol;
(c) The need to allocate resources to enable all parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to meet 2013 and 2015 compliance obligations in respect of Articles 2F and 2H of the Protocol; (d) Rules and guidelines agreed upon by th e Executive Committee at all meetings, up to and including its sixty-second meeting, for determining eligibility for the funding of investment projects, non-investment projects, including institutional strengthening, measures to combat illegal trade and sectoral or national phase-out plans, including hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out management plans, measures to manage banks of ozone-depleting substances and ozone-depleting substance destruction projects; (e) 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;UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

30 3. That, in preparing the report referred to above, the Panel should consult widely all relevant persons and institutions and other rele vant sources of information deemed useful; 4. That the Panel shall strive to complete the report referred to above in time to enable it to be distributed to all parties two months before the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group; 5. That the Panel should provide indicative figures for the periods 2015–2017 and 2018-2020 to support a stable and sufficient level of funding, on the understanding that those figures will be updated in subsequent replenishment studies;



## XXII/4: Essential-use nominations fo r controlled substances for 2011

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 for metered-dose inhalers does not qualify as an essential use if t echnically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes are available that ar e acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health,
Noting the Panel’s conclusion that technically satisfactory alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers ar e available for some therapeutic formulations for treating asthma and chronic ob structive pulmonary disease, Taking into account the Panel’s analysis and recommendations for essential-use exemptions for controlled substances for the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers used for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
Noting that the Medical Technical Options Committee continued to have difficulty assessing some nominations submitted by parties in accordance with the criteria of decision IV/25 and subsequent relevant decisions owing to a lack of certain information, Noting also that, notwithstanding the insufficient in formation referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Medical Technical Options Committee ga ve due consideration to the health and safety of patients with regard to the amounts recommended, Welcoming the continued progress in several parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in reducing their reliance on chlorofluorocarbon-ba sed metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are developed, receive regulatory appr oval and are marketed for sale, Welcoming also the announcements by India and the Islamic Republic of Iran that they will not require pharmaceutical-grade ch lorofluorocarbons under essentia l-use nominations for 2011 or beyond for the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers, and acknowledging their efforts in their phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons in metered-dose inhalers, Acknowledging Bangladesh’s efforts in its phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons in metered-dose inhalers, and taking into account the ec onomic difficulties faced by that party, Welcoming the announcement by Bangladesh that it will not, in the future, submit essential-use nominations for the use of chlorofluorocarbons in salbutamol, beclomethasone or levosalbutamol metered-dose inhalers, 1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption for 2011 necessary to satisfy essential uses of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-do se inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as specified in th e annex to the present decision; 2. To request nominating parties to supply to the Medical Technical Options Committee information to enable assessment of essential-use no minations in accordance with the criteria set out in decision IV/25 and subsequent relevant decisions as set out in the handbook on essential-use nominations; 3. To encourage parties with essential-use exemptions in 2011 to consider sourcing required pharmaceutical-grade chlo rofluorocarbons initially from stoc kpiles where they are available and accessible; 4. To encourage parties with stockpiles of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons potentially available for export to parties with esse ntial-use exemptions in 2011 to notify the Ozone Secretariat of such quantities and of a contact point by 31 December 2010;UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

31 5. To request the Secretariat to post on its website details of the potentially available stocks referred to in the preceding paragraph; 6. That the parties listed in the annex to the present decision shall have full flexibility in sourcing the quantity of pharmaceu tical-grade chlorofl uorocarbons to the extent required for manufacturing metered-dose inhalers, as authorized in paragraph 1 above, from imports, from domestic producers or from existing stockpiles; 7. To approve the authorization given to the Dominican Republic by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Technology and Economic Asse ssment Panel, of the emergency essential use of 1.832 metric tonnes of CFC-113 as a diluter for silicon grease during the manufacture of medical devices, to cover the period 2010–2011;



### Annex to decision XXII/4

Essential-use authorizations fo r 2011 of chlorofluorocarbon s for metered-dose inhalers (in metric tonnes)

Party 2011 Argentina 107.2 Bangladesh 57.0 China 741.15 Pakistan 39.6 Russian Federation 212.0



## XXII/5: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon 113 for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation

Noting the evaluation and recommendation of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee in respect of the essential-use nomination for chlorofluorocarbon 113 (CFC- 113) for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation,
Noting also that the Russian Federation has continued to explore the possibility of importing CFC-113 to meet its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks, Noting further that the Russian Federation has been successful in reducing its use and emissions of CFC-113 in line with a timetable of technical transformation developed in collaboration with the Chemicals Techni cal Options Committee,
Noting, however, that the Chemicals Technical Optio ns Committee has recommended greater efforts to introduce a ppropriate alternatives, 1. To authorize an essential-use exemption for the production and consumption in 2011 of 100 metric tonnes of CFC-113 in the Russian Federation for chlorofluorocarbon applications in its aerospace industry; 2. To request the Russian Federation to co ntinue to explore further the possibility of importing CFC-113 for its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks; 3. To urge the Russian Federation to continue its efforts on the introduction of alternative solvents and the adoption of newly designed equipment to complete the phase-out of CFC-113 according to an accelerated time schedule; 

## XXII/6: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2011 and 2012

Noting with appreciation the work by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee,
Recognizing the significant reductions made in critical -use nominations for methyl bromide in many parties, Recalling paragraph 10 of decision XVII/9, Recalling also that all parties that have nominated critical-use exemptions are to report data on stocks using the accounting framework agreed on by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties,UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

32 Recognizing that the production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, Recognizing also that parties operating under a critical-use exemption should take into account the extent to which methyl bromide is available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled me thyl bromide in licensing, permitting or authorizing the production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses

, Stressing that parties should reduce their stocks of methyl bromide retained for employment in critical-use exemptions to a minimum in as short a time period as possible, 1. To permit, for the agreed critical-use cat egories for 2011 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 co nditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2011 set forth in table B of the an nex to the present decision which are necessary to satisfy critical uses, in addition to the amounts permitted in decision XXI/11; 2. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2012 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 co nditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2012 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. That parties shall endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of methyl bromide for critical uses as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present decision; 4. To recognize the continued contribution of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee’s expertise and to agree th at, in accordance with section 4.1 of the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the Committee should ensure that it develops its recommendations in a consensus process that includes full discussion among all available Committee members and should ensure that members with rele vant expertise are involved in developing its recommendations; 5. That each party that has an agreed cr itical-use exemption shall renew its commitment to ensuring that the criteria in paragraph 1 of decisi on IX/6, in particular the criterion laid down in paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of decision IX/6, are applied in licensing, permitting or authorizing critical uses of methyl bromide, with each party requested to report on the implementation of the present provision to the Ozone Secretariat by 1 February for the years to which the present decision applies; 6. To urge parties operating under a critical-use exemption to put in place an effective system to discourage the accumulation of methyl bromide produced under the exemption;


## Annex to decision XXII/6

Table A Agreed critical-use categories for 2011 (metric tonnes)

Australia Strawberry runners (5.950) Canada Pasta (2.084)

Israel Broomrape – protected (12.500), cucumb ers (12.500), cut flowers and bulbs – protected (52.330), cut flowers – open field (23.292), melons – protected and open field (35.000), strawberry fruit – Sharon and Gaza (41.875), strawberry runners – Sharon and Gaza (27.000), sweet potatoes (20.000)

Table B Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2011 (metric tonnes)

Australia 5.950

Canada 2.084
Israel 224.497UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

33 Table C Agreed critical-use categories for 2012 (metric tonnes)

Australia Strawberry runners (29.760), rice (3.653) Canada Mills (11.020), strawberry runne rs (Prince Edward Island) (5.261) Japan Chestnuts (3.489), cucumbers (26.162), ginger – field (42.235), ginger – protected (6.558), melons (67.936), peppers – green and hot (61.154), watermelons (12.075)

United States of America Commodities (2.419), National Pest Mana gement Association food-processing structures (0.200), mills and processo rs (74.510), dried cured pork (3.730), cucurbits (59.500), eggplant – field (6.904), forest nursery seedlings (34.230), nursery stock – fruit, nuts, flowers (1.591), orchard replants (18.324), ornamentals (48.164), peppers – field (28.366), strawberry – field (678.004), strawberry runners (3.752), tomatoes – field (54.423), sweet potato slips (8.709)

Table D Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2012 (metric tonnes)

Australia 33.413

Canada 16.281 Japan 219.609

United States of America 922.826*

[* Minus available stocks.] 

## XXII/7: Global laboratory and analytical use exemption

Recalling paragraph 7 of decision XXI/6, which allows parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until 31 December 2010 to deviate from the existin g laboratory and analytical use bans in individual cases, where a party considers that this is ju stified, and asks parties to revisit the issue at the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties, Considering that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel did not provide all information requested by decision XXI/6 in time for the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties and that the parties were therefore unable to evaluate the situation in respect of laboratory and analytical uses by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol,
Noting that some parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 continue to have difficulty adopting alternatives for those laboratory and an alytical uses already banned under the global exemption and need more time for information collection and related policy framework development, 1. To allow parties operating under paragr aph 1 of Article 5 until 31 December 2011 to deviate from the existing laboratory and analytical use bans in individual cases, where a party considers that this is justified, and to ask parties to revisit the issue at the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties; 2. To request parties to continue to investigate domestically the possibility of replacing ozone-depleting substances in those laboratory an d analytical uses listed in the reports of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel prepar ed in accordance with decisions XVII/10 and XIX/18 and to report progress to the Ozone Secretariat by 30 April 2011; 

## XXII/8: Uses of controlled substances as process agents

Noting with appreciation the 2009 and 2010 progress reports of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on process agents, Noting that table A in decision X/14 on process-agent uses has been updated by decisions XV/6, XVII/7 and XIX/15, Noting also that the Panel’s 2010 progress report indicates that several parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol included in table B of decision X/14 haveUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

34 reported that they no longer use any controlled substances as process agents, and that three process-agent uses have been discontinued in the European Union, Recalling that the Panel’s 2009 progress report on process agents indicated that Israel had reported the use of controlled substances for a process-agent application included in table A of decision X/14, Recalling also that, according to decision X/14, quantitie s of controlled substances produced or imported by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for use as process agents in plants and installations in operation before 1 January 1999 should not be taken into account in the calculation of production and consumption from 1 January 2002 onwards, provided that emissions of those substances have been reduced to levels agreed by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol to be reasonably achievable in a cost-effective manner without undue abandonment of infrastructure,
Recognizing that, in the light of the phase-out dates of 1 January 2010 applicable to chlorofluorocarbons and carbon tetrachloride under the Montreal Protocol, th e Executive Committee is unlikely to agree on any further emission levels for the use of such substances as process agents in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 beyond 2010,
Recognizing also the substantial progress undertaken by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in reducing the use and emissions of controlled substances used as process agents,

Aware that the use and emissions of controlled subs tances used as process agents will continue beyond 2010 in only two parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5,
Agreeing that both parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so operating that report process agent uses should now be listed in table B of decision X/14 and that those of the latter parties not using controlled substances as pro cess agents should be removed from that table,
Noting that the Technology and Economic Asse ssment Panel and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund will provide a joint report to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-first meeting, in 2011, on further efforts to reduce uses of process agents,

1. That quantities of controlled substances pr oduced or imported by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for use as process agents in plants and installations in operation before 1 January 1999 should not be take n into account in the calculation of production and consumption from 1 January 2011 onwards, provided that emissions of those substances are within the levels defined in the updated table B of decision X/14 included in the annex to the present decision;

2. To update tables A and B of decision X/14 as set out in the annex to the present decision;

3. To request each party to report to the Ozone Secretariat, by 15 March 2011, if possible, or 1 July 2011 at the latest, the specific applications for which it uses controlled substances as process agents and to continue to report such informati on in the context of the annual reports required by decision X/14;

4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to include, in its 2011 progress report, a table listing process agent uses by individual parties;

5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, beyond the reporting and assessment in respect of process agent uses requested for 2011, to review in 2013, and every second year thereafter, progress made in reducing process agent uses and to make any additional recommendations to parties on further actions to reduce uses and emissions of process agents;

6. That, once all process agent projects a pproved by the Executive Committee are completed, reporting by the Executive Committee to the parties as requested in decision XVII/6 will no longer be required;UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

35 

## Annex to decision XXII/8
Table A: List of uses of controlled substances as process agents

No. Process agent application Substance 1 Elimination of NCl 3 in chlor-alkali production Carbon tetrachloride (CTC) 2 Chlorine recovery by tail gas ab sorption in chlor-alkali production CTC 3 Production of chlorinated rubber CTC 4 Production of endosulfan CTC 5 Production of chlorosulfonated polyolefin (CSM) CTC 6 Production of aramid polymer (PPTA) CTC 7 Production of synthetic fibre sheet CFC-11 8 Production of chlorinated paraffin CTC 9 Photochemical synthesis of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of Z-perfluoropolyethers and difunctional derivatives CFC-12

10 Preparation of perfluoropolyether di ols with high functionality CFC-113 11 Production of cyclodime CTC 12 Production of chlorinated polypropene CTC 13 Production of chlorinated ethyle ne vinyl acetate (CEVA) CTC 14 Production of methyl isocyanate derivatives CTC 15 Production of 3-phenoxybenzaldehyde CTC 16 Production of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine CTC 17 Production of imidacloprid CTC 18 Production of buprofenzin CTC 19 Production of oxadiazon CTC 20 Production of chloradized N-methylaniline CTC 21 Production of 1,3-dichlorobenzothiazole CTC 22 Bromination of a st yrenic polymer BCM 23 Synthesis of 2,4-D (2,4- dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) CTC 24 Synthesis of di-(2-ethylhexyl) peroxydicarbonate (DEHPC) CTC 25 Production of high modulus polyethylene fibre CFC-113 26 Production of vinyl chloride monomer CTC 27 Production of sultamicillin BCM 28 Production of prallethrin (pesticide) CTC 29 Production of o-nitrobenzaldehyde (for dyes) CTC 30 Production of 3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC 31 Production of 2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC 32 Production of 2-thiophene ethanol CTC 33 Production of 3,5-dinitrobenzoyl chloride (3,5-DNBC) CTC 34 Production of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone CTC 35 Production of m -nitrobenzaldehyde CTC 36 Production of tichlopidine CTC 37 Production of p -nitro benzyl alcohol CTC 38 Production of tolclofos methyl CTC 39 Production of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) CTC 40 Production of tetrafluorobenzoylethyl acetate CTC 41 Production of 4-bromophenol CTCUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

36 

### Table B: Limits for process-agent uses (all figures are in metric tonnes per year)

Party Make-up or consumption Maximum emissions European Union 1 083 17 United States of America 2 300 181 Russian Federation 800 17 Switzerland 5 0.4 Israel 3.5 0 Brazil 2.2 * 2.2 *
China 1 103 1 103 Total 5 296.71 1 320.61

* In accordance with decision 54/36 of the Executive Committ ee of the Multilateral Fund, the annual make-up or consumption an d maximum emissions for Brazil w ill be 2.2 metric tonnes up to and including 2013 and zero thereafter. 

## XXII/9: Hydrochlorofluorocar bons preblended in polyols

Taking into account the importance of the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in the polyurethane foams sector for compliance with the adjusted phase-out schedule for hydrochlorofluorocarbo ns in accordance with decision XIX/6, Acknowledging with appreciation the efforts by India to bring the issue of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in preblended polyols to the attention of the parties,
Recognizing the fruitful discussions by the parties on the issue at the thirtieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, 1. To note with appreciation the cooperative manner in which the members of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund addressed this issue at the Committee’s sixty-first meeting through decision 61/47, by agreeing on a framework on eligible incremental costs for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol in their transition from the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in preblended polyols; 2. To affirm that the issue of the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in preblended polyols has been addressed to the sa tisfaction of the parties; 

## XXII/10: Destruction technologies with regard to ozone-depleting substances

Recalling the work of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its associated task forces in assessing existing and emerging destruction technologies and in making recommendations for technologies to be added to the list of approved destruction technologies, as last requested in decision XVI/15, Noting with appreciation the organization and content of the seminar on the environmentally sound management of banks of ozone-depleting substances held pursuant to decision XXI/2, Acknowledging that one of the significant themes of the seminar was the need to ensure the appropriate destruction of ozone-depleting substances recovered from products and equipment at the end of their lives and that criteria for the verification of destruction of ozone-depleting substances would contribute to increased confidence in dest ruction capabilities in a number of regions of the world, including in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol,
Noting that the Code of Good Housekeeping Procedures set out in annex III to the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties 1 in accordance with paragraph 6 of decision XV/9 provides a useful basis for local management in respect of the appropriate handling, transportation, monitoring, measurement and control of ozone-depleting substances in destruction facilities but does not provide a framework that can be used for comprehensive verification,

1 UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/9.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

37 Recalling decision XV/9 on the approval of destruction technologies and annex II to the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties, 2 which lists approved destruction processes by source and destruction method, Recalling also that, by paragraph (c) of decision VII/5 and paragraph 7 of decision XI/13, parties are urged to adopt recovery and recycling technologies for quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide, to the extent technically and econom ically feasible, until alternatives are available, Recalling further that, by paragraph 6 of decision XX/6, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is requested, in its report on opportunities for reductions in methyl bromide use or emissions for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes, to provide to the Meeting of the Parties a list of available methyl bromide recapture technol ogies for consideration by the parties,
Noting that the Panel was able to provide a list of examples of commercial recapture units in operation in several countries in its report to the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties, Noting also that the Panel has reported on a numb er of emerging technologies for the destruction of ozone-depleting substances that complement those reported on previously, 1. To request the Panel and the relevant technical options committees, in consultation with other relevant experts, for consideration at the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and with a view to possible inclusion in the Montreal Protocol handbook: (a) To evaluate and recommend the appropri ate destruction and removal efficiency for methyl bromide and to update the destruction and re moval efficiency for any other substance already listed in annex II to the report of th e Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties; (b) To review the list of destruction technologies adopted by parties, taking into account emerging technologies identified in its 2010 progress re port and any other developments in this sector, and to provide an evaluation of their performa nce and commercial and technical availability; (c) To develop criteria that should be used to verify the destruction of ozone-depleting substances at facilities that use approved ozone-de pleting-substance destruction technologies, taking into account the recommended destruction and rem oval efficiencies for the relevant substance; 2. To invite submissions to the Ozone Secretariat by 1 February 2011 of data relevant to the tasks set out in paragraph 1 above;



## XXII/11: Progress by the International Civil Aviation Organization in the transition from the use of halon

Recognizing with appreciation that the International Civil Aviation Organization General Assembly adopted resolution A37- 9, on halon replacement, at its thirty-seventh session; Acknowledging that resolution A37-9 states that there is an urgent need to continue developing and implementing halon alternatives for civil avia tion; to intensify development of acceptable halon alternatives for fire-extinguishing systems in car go compartments and engine/auxiliary power units; and to continue work to improve halon alternatives for hand-held fire extinguishers and directs the International Civil Aviation Organization Council to establish a mandate for the replacement of halon: (a) In lavatory fire-extinguishing systems used in aircraft produced after a specified date in the 2011 time frame; (b) In hand-held fire extinguishers used in aircraft produced after a specified date in the 2016 time frame; (c) In engine and auxiliary power unit fire-exti nguishing systems used in aircraft for which applications for type certification will be submit ted after a specified date in the 2014 time frame, Recalling that decision XXI/7 expresses the parties’ continued support for the implementation of mandatory dates by which halon alternatives will be used in agreed applications for newly designed aircraft and requests that the Technology and Ec onomic Assessment Panel and the Halons Technical Options Committee continue to engage the Internatio nal Civil Aviation Organization on this issue and report on progress at the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,

2 Ibid.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

38 1. To request the Secretariat to convey to the International Civil Aviation Organization secretariat the parties’ appreciation for the contin ued work of its General Assembly and the adoption of resolution A37-9;

2. To express the parties’ continued support for the implementation of mandatory dates by which halon alternatives will be used in previously agreed-on applications in newly designed or newly produced aircraft consistent with resolution A37-9;

3. To request that the Secretariat ask the International Civil Aviation Organization secretariat to send halon reserves data reported to the International Civil Aviation Organization to the Secretariat annually;

4. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Halons Technical Options Committee continue to engage with the International Civil Aviation Organization on further uses of halon on aircraft and report on progress at the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties;



## XXII/12: Situation of Haiti

Noting with appreciation the efforts and commitment made by the Government of Haiti to sustain compliance with the Montreal Protocol,
Recognizing the extraordinary difficu lties now faced by Haiti as a result of the devastating 7.2 magnitude earthquake that occurred on 12 January 2010, which has had adverse effects on the economic and social welfare of the people of Haiti, Understanding Haiti’s commitment to meeting its obligations in respect of phasing out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol and its amendments, 1. To encourage all parties to assist Haiti by controlling the export of ozone-depleting substances and technologies dependent on ozone-depleting substances to Haiti through the control of trade in accordance with decision X/9 and other relevant decisions; 2. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, when considering project proposals for Haiti, to take into account the special situation of Haiti and the special difficulties that it may pose in respect of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, including in particular the accelerated phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, in accordance with the re quirements of the Montreal Protocol; 3. To request the implementing agencies to consider providing appr opriate assistance to Haiti in the areas of institutional strengthening, capacity-building, data collection and monitoring and control of trade in ozone-depleting substances; 4. Also to request the implementing agencies to consider providing appropriate assistance for the development of a strategy to achieve the reorganization of Haiti’s national ozone unit and in the continuation of its efforts to report to the Ozone Secretariat data on consumption of ozone-depleting substances in accordance with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol; 5. That recommendations made by the Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol are to be considered in the light of the difficulties faced by Haiti as a result of the earthquake; 

## XXII/13: Non-compliance with the Mo ntreal Protocol by Singapore

1. To note that Singapore reported the export of 32 metric tonnes of methyl bromide in 2008 to a State classified as operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol that is also a State not party to the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which places the party in non-compliance with the rest riction on trade with non-parties to the Protocol;

2. To urge Singapore to refrain from engaging in trade in methyl bromide with States not party to the Copenhagen Amendment;

3. To monitor closely the party’s progress with regard to the implementation of its obligations under the Montreal Protocol;UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

39 

## XXII/14: Data and information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol

Noting with appreciation that 196 parties of the 196 that should have reported data for 2009 have done so and that 68 of those parties reported their data by 30 June 2010 in accordance with decision XV/15,
Noting further that reporting by 30 June each year gr eatly 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, 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; 

## XXII/15: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saudi Arabia

Noting that Saudi Arabia ratified the Montreal Protocol and the 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 2,749,975 Un ited States dollars from the Multilateral Fund to enable Saudi Arabia’s comp liance in accordance with Ar ticle 10 of the Protocol, and that Saudi Arabia had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in November 2007, Noting further that Saudi Arabia reported annual consumption for the controlled substances listed in Annex A, group I (chlorofluorocarbons), of 657.8 ODP-tonnes for 2007 and of 365 ODP-tonnes for 2008, which exceeds the party’s maximum allowable consumption of 269.8 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for those two years, and that the party was therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for chlorofluorocarbons under the Protocol for 2007 and 2008,
Noting, however

, that Saudi Arabia reported consumption of Annex A, group I, substances (chlorofluorocarbons) of 190 ODP- tonnes for 2009, which places th e party in compliance with the chlorofluorocarbon control measures for that year,

1. To note with appreciation Saudi Arabia’s su bmission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s chlorofluorocarbon control measures, under which, without prejudice to the operation of the financ ial mechanism of the Protocol, Saudi Arabia specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing chlorofluorocarbon consumption to no greater than zero ODP-tonnes in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the parties;
(b) To monitoring its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances;

2. To urge Saudi Arabia to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to phase out the consumption of chlorofluorocarbons;

3. To monitor closely the progress of Saudi Arabia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control m easures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a party in good standing. In that regard, Saudi Arabia shou ld 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 the 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 the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance, that, in the event that it fails to return to compliance, the parties will co nsider 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 chlorofluorocarbons th at are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that e xporting parties are not contributin g to a continuing situation of non-compliance;UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

40 

## XXII/16: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Republic of Korea

1. To note that the Republic of Korea reported the export of 37 metric tonnes of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in 2008 and 18.2 metric tonnes of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in 2009 to a State classified as not operating un der paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol that is also a State not party to the Copenhagen Amendment to the Protocol, which places the party in non-compliance with the trade restrictio n against non-parties to the Protocol;

2. To note, however, that the party has taken measures not to export hydrochlorofluorocarbons to any State not party to the Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments to the Montreal Protocol in 2010 and in subsequent years except to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;

3. That no further action is necessary in view of the undertaking by the Republic of Korea not to authorize any further exports of hydrochlorofluorocarbons to any non-party to the relevant amendments to the Montreal Protocol except to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;

4. To monitor closely the party’s progress with regard to the implementation of its obligations under the Montreal Protocol; 

## XXII/17: Ratification of the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Montreal Protocol by Kazakhstan
1. To note with concern that Kazakhstan is the only party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol that has not ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Protocol; 2. Mindful that this situation prevents Kazakhstan from trading in ozone-depleting substances, and particularly in hydrochlorof luorocarbons, with par ties to the Protocol; 3. To urge Kazakhstan to ratify, approve or accede to all amendments to the Montreal Protocol so that it can trade in all ozone-deple ting substances with parties to those amendments; 

## XXII/18: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Vanuatu

Noting that Vanuatu ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 21 November 1994 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 120,520 Unite d States dollars from the Multilateral Fund and additional assistance through projects approved for th e Pacific Island countries, of which Vanuatu is an integral part, to enable Vanuatu’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol, and that Vanuatu had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in March 2002, Noting further that Vanuatu reported annual consumption of the controlled substances listed in Annex A, group I (chlorofluorocarbons), of 0.3 ODP-tonnes for 2007 and 0.7 ODP-tonnes for 2008, which exceeded the party’s maximum allowable cons umption of zero ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for those years, and that the party is th erefore in non-compliance w ith the control measures for those substances under the Protocol for those years,

1. To note with appreciation Vanuatu’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s chlorofluorocarbon control measures under which, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Vanuatu specifically commits itself:
(a) To reducing its consumption of chlorofluoro carbons to no greater than zero ODP-tonnes in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the parties;
(b) To monitoring its import licensing system for ozone-depleting substances;

2. To urge Vanuatu to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to phase out consumption of chlorofluorocarbons;

3. To monitor closely the progress of Vanuatu with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. To the degree that the party is working towardsUNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

41 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 , Vanuatu 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 the Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance;

4. To caution Vanuatu, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by the Meeting of the Parties in resp ect of non-compliance, th at, in the event that Vanuatu fails to return to compliance, the parties w ill 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 chlorofluorocarbons th at are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that e xporting parties are not contributin g to a continuing situation of non-compliance; 

## XXII/19: Status of 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 controlled substances in Annexes A, B, C and E of the Protocol, to report to the Secretariat on the establishm ent and operation of that system

, Noting with appreciation that 176 of the 181 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 12 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 ille gal trade and enable data collection,

1. To urge Brunei Darussalam, Ethiopia, Lesotho, San Marino and Timor-Leste, which are the remaining parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol that have not yet established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances, to do so and to report to the Secretariat by 31 May 2011 in time for the Impl ementation Committee and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties, in 2011, to review their compliance situation;

2. To encourage Angola, Botswana and Vanuatu, which are the remaining parties to the Protocol that have neither ratified the Montreal Amendment nor established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances, to do so;

3. To urge all parties that already operate licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances to ensure that they ar e structured in accordance with Artic le 4B of the Protocol and that they are implemented and enforced effectively;

4. 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; 

## XXII/20: Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances

Recalling that in decision XVIII/17 the Secretariat was requested to maintain a consolidated record of the cases in which parties had explained that their excess production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances in a given year were a consequence of the production or import of ozone-depleting substances in that year that were stockpiled for some specified purposes in a future
year, Recalling also that the Secretariat was also requested to incorporate that record in the documentation prepared for each meeting of the Implementation Committee, for information purposes only, as well as in the Secretariat’s report on data submitted by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of the Protocol,
Noting that the Secretariat has reported 29 cases since 1999 involving 12 parties that have exceeded the allowed level of produ ction or consumption of a partic ular ozone-depleting substance in a given year and explained that their excess production or consumption resulted from one of the scenarios mentioned above,UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

42 1. To remind all parties to report all produc tion of ozone-depleting substances, whether intended or unintended, to enable the calculation of their production and consumption according to Article 3 of the Protocol;

2. To request parties, when reporting data under Article 7 of the Protocol, to identify any excess production and consumption that is a consequence of ozone-depleting substance production in the reporting year:
(a) For domestic destruction or export for destruction in a future year;
(b) For domestic feedstock use or export for that use in a future year;
(c) For export to meet basic domestic needs of developing countries in a future year;

3. That in any case mentioned in paragraph 2 no follow-up action from the Implementation Committee is deemed necessary if the party reports that it has the necessary measures in place to prohibit the use of th e ozone-depleting substances fo r any other purpose than those designated in items (a)–(c) of paragraph 2 at the time of production;

4. To request the Secretariat to continue to ma intain a consolidated record of the cases covered by paragraph 2, to incorporate that record in the documentation prepared for each meeting of the Implementation Committee, and to include it in the Secretariat’s report on data submitted by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of the Protocol;



## XXII/21: Administrative and financ ial matters: financial reports and budgets

Recalling decision XXI/32 on financial matters, Taking note of the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer for the biennium 2008–2009, ended 31 December 2009,
Recognizing that voluntary contributions are an e ssential complement for the effective implementation of the Montreal Protocol, Welcoming the continued efficient management by the Secretariat of the finances of the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund,

1. To approve the revised 2010 budget in the amount of 4,955,743 United States dollars and the 2011 budget in the amount of $4,835,740 and to take note of the proposed budget of $4,943,796 for 2012, as set out in annex I to the re port of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substan ces that Deplete the Ozone Layer; 3

2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $558,807 in 2011 and to note the proposed drawdown of $666,863 in 2012;

3. To approve, as a consequence of the drawdowns referred to in paragraph 2 above, total contributions to be paid by the parties of $4,276,933 for 2011 and to note the contributions of $4,276,933 for 2012, as set out in annex II to the report of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties;

4. That the contributions of individual parties for 2011 shall be listed in annex II to the report of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties;

5. To authorize the Secretariat to maintain the operating cash reserve at 15 per cent of the 2011 budget to be used to meet the final expenditures under the Trust Fund;

6. To urge all parties to pay both their outstanding contributions and their future contributions promptly and in full;



## XXII/22: Membership changes on the assessment panels

1. To thank Mr. Jan C. van der Leun, who has served as Co-Chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel since its inception, for hi s long and outstanding service on behalf of the Montreal Protocol;

2. To endorse Mr. Nigel D. Paul as Co-Chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel;

3 UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

43 3. To thank Mr. José Pons Pons for his long and outstanding service as Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;

4. To endorse the selection of Ms. Marta Pizano as Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for a term of four year s, subject to re-endorsement by the parties in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of refere nce of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;

5. To thank Mr. Thomas Morehouse for his long and outstanding service as a Senior Expert of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and as a member and Co-Chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee;

6. To endorse the selection of Ms. Bella Maranion as a Senior Expert of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for a term of four years, subject to re-endorsement by the parties in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of refere nce of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;

7. To request the Technology and Economic A ssessment Panel and its technical options committees to draw up guidelines for the nomination of experts by the parties, in accordance with section 2.9 of the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, for presentation to the parties prior to the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;

8. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel consider the need for balance and appropriate expertise when appointing me mbers of the technical options committees, task forces and other subsidiary groups in accordance with sections 2.1, 2.5 and 2.8 of the terms of reference of the Panel;



## XXII/23: Membership of the Implementation Committee

1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol in 2010; 2. To confirm the positions of Egypt, Jordan, the Russian Federation, Saint Lucia and the United States of America as memb ers of the Committee for one furthe r year and to select Algeria, Armenia, Germany, Nicaragua and Sri Lanka as members of the Committee for a two-year period beginning 1 January 2011;

3. To note the selection of Ms. Elisabeth Mu nzert (Germany) to serve as President and of Mr. Ghazi Al Odat (Jordan) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one year beginning 1 January 2011;



## XXII/24: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund

1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with the assistance of the Fund secretariat in 2010;
2. To endorse the selection of Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Japan, Switzerland 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 Argentina, China, Cuba, Grenada, Kenya, Kuwait and Morocco as members representing parties operating under that paragraph, for one year beginning 1 January 2011;

3. To note the selection of Mr. Patrick John McInerney (Australia) to serve as Chair and Mr. Wur u i Wen (China) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning 1 January 2011;



## XXII/25: Co-Chairs of the Open-ende d Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

To endorse the selection of Mr. Ndiaye Cheikh Sylla (Senegal) and Ms. Gudi Alkemade (Netherlands) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2011;UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

44 

## XXII/26: Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
To convene the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Bali, Indonesia, and to announce a firm date for the meeting as soon as possible.



### Comments made at the time of adoption of decisions

208. Following the adoption of the decision on administrative and financial matters the representative of Japan commented on footnote 1 of annex I to the present report decision, relating to the parties’ desire to retain the services of the current Executive Secretary of the Montreal Protocol through 2015. He emphasized that there was very strong support for raising the level of the position from D-2 to the level of Assistant Secretary-Genera l and that the parties called upon the President of the Bureau of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Partie s to work with the Executive Director of UNEP to explore any means to retain the Executive Secretary through 2015 and to convey to the Secretary-General of the United Na tions the parties’ will in that regard. Asking that his comments be reflected in the present report, he also emphasized hi s country’s strong desire that the President and the Executive Director should take the steps outlined in the footnote to ensure the continuity of the current Executive Secretary. 

## XI. Adoption of the report of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties

209. The present report was adopted on Friday, 12 November 2010, on the basis of the draft report submitted to the parties.

210. Following adoption of the report Ms. Gudi Alkemade (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of herself and Mr. Ndiaye Cheikh Sylla (Senegal), expressed her gratitude to the parties for their trust and support in selecting her and Mr. Sylla as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group for 2011. She pledged their best efforts in working with the partie s and the Secretariat to ach ieve success in 2011. 

## XII. Closure of the meeting

211. Following the customary exchange of courtesies, the President d eclared the meeting closed at 8.15 p.m. on Friday, 12 November 2010.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/945Annex ITrust Fund for the Montreal Protocol onSubstances that Deplete the Ozone LayerApproved 2010 and 2011 and proposed 2012 budgets (in United States dollars)w/m 2010 w/m 2011 w/m 2012Approvedrevision10 Project personnel component1100 Project personnel1101 Executive Secretary (D-2) (sharedwith the Vienna Convention, (VC))16 161 900 6 166 757 6 171 7601102 Deputy Executive Secretary (D-1) 12 252 000 12 259 560 12 267 3471103 Senior Legal Officer (P-5) 12 196 730 12 202 632 12 208 7111104 Senior Scientific Affairs Officer (P-5) (shared with VC) 6 128 159 6 130 000 6 133 9001105 Administrative Officer (P-5) (paid by UNEP) 12 — — —1106 Database Manager (Information Systems and Technology (P-4)) 12 145 743 12 150 115 12 154 6181107 Programme Officer (Communication and Information (P-3)) (paid from VC) 12 12 121108 Programme Officer (Monitoring and Compliance (P4)) 12 185 400 12 188 000 12 193 6401199 Subtotal1 069 9321 097 0641 129 9761200 Consultants1201 Assistance in data-reporting, analysisand promotion of theimplementation of theProtocol40 000 40 000 40 0001299 Subtotal40 000 40 000 40 0001300 Administrative support1301 Administrative Assistant (G-7) (shared with VC) 6 21 250 6 21 250 6 21 8881302 Administrative Assistant (G-6) 12 26 625 12 27 000 12 27 8101303 Programme Assistant (G-6) (paid from VC) 12 — 12 — 12 —1304 Programme Assistant (Data) (G-6) (shared with VC) 6 17 573 6 17 573 6 17 5731305 Information Assistant (Research) (G-6)(shared with VC) 6 16 295 6 16 295 6 16 2951306 Information management (Assistant/Documentation Clerk) (G-6) 12 27 560 12 27 560 12 27 5601307 Data Assistant (Computer Information Systems Assistant) (G-7) 12 42 174 12 42 174 12 43 4391308 Administrative Assistant - Fund (G-7) (paid by UNEP) 12 — 12 — 12 —1309 Team Assistant/Logistics Assistant (G-4) (paid by UNEP) 12 — 12 — 12 —1310 Meetings services (Assistant/Bilingual Senior Secretary) (G-6) (paid from VC) 12 — 12 — 12 —1320 Temporary assistance 12 21 300 21 300 21 3001321 Open-ended Working Group Meetings2523 704 490 000 490 0001322 Preparatory and parties meetings (sharedwith VC every three years, applies to theTwenty-Third Meeting of the Parties tothe Montreal Protocoland Ninth meetingof the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention in 2011)500 000 350 000 500 0001323 Assessment panel meetings 100 000 75 000 75 0001324 Bureau meeting 20 000 20 000 20 0001325 Implementation Committee meetings 111 200 111 200 111 2001326 MP informal consultationmeetings 10 000 10 000 10 0001399 Subtotal1 437 681 1 229 352 1 382 065UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/946w/m 2010 w/m 2011 w/m 2012Approvedrevision1600 Travel on official business1601Staff travel on official business 210 000 210 000 210 0001602 Conference services staff travelon official business 15 000 15 000 15 0001699 Subtotal225 000 225 000 225 0001999 Component total2 772 613 2 591 416 2 777 0412000 Contracts370 00030 Meeting/participation component3300 Support for participation3301Assessment panel meetings4500 000 500 000 500 0003302 Preparatory and party meetings (Montreal Protocol bears the cost of theparticipation of MP & VC representativesfrom article 5 parties at the joint 23rdMOP and 9th COP in 2011)350 000 350 000 350 0003303Open-ended Working Group meetings 300 000 300 000 300 0003304 Bureau meeting 20 000 20 000 20 0003305 Implementation Committee meetings 125 000 125 000 125 0003306 Consultations in an informal meeting 10 000 10 000 10 0003399 Subtotal1 305 000 1 305 000 1 305 0003999 Component total1 305 0001 305 000 1 305 00040 Equipment and premises component4100 Expendable equipment (items under $1,500)4101 Miscellaneous expendables (shared with VC)22 00022 00022 0004199 Subtotal22,000 22 000 22 0004200 Non-expendable equipment4201 Personal computers and accessories 10 000 20 000 5 0004202 Portable computers 5 000 5 000 15 0004203 Other office equipment (server, fax, scanner, furniture, etc.) 20 000 20 000 10 0004204 Photocopiers 5 000 5 000 5 0004299 Subtotal40 000 50 000 35 0004300 Premises4301 Rental of office premises (shared with VC)48 00048 00048 0004399 Subtotal48 000 48 000 48 0004999 Component total110 000120 000 105 00050 Miscellaneous component5100 Operation and maintenance of equipment5101 Maintenance of equipmentand others (shared with VC)25 000 25 000 25 0005199 Subtotal25 000 25 000 25 0005200 Reporting costs5201 Reporting 45 000 35 000 35 0005202 Reporting (assessment panels) 10 000 10 000 10 0005203 Reporting (Protocol awareness) 5 000 5 000 5 0005299 Subtotal60 000 50 000 50 000UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/947w/m 2010 w/m 2011 w/m 2012Approvedrevision5300 Sundry5301 Communications 36 000 36 000 36 0005302 Freight charges35 000 35 000 35 0005303 Training12 000 12 000 12 0005304 Others (International Ozone Day) 10 000 10 000 10 0005399 Subtotal93 000 93 000 93 0005400 Hospitality5401 Hospitality 20 000 25 000 20 0005499 Subtotal20 000 25 000 20 0005999 Component total198,000193 000 188 00099 Total direct project cost4 385 6134 279 416 4 375 041Programme support costs (13 per cent)570 130 556 324 568 755Grand total (inclusive of programme support costs) 4 955 7434 835 740 4 943 796Operating cash reserve exclusive of programme support costs—— —Total budget4 955 7434 835 740 4 943 796Drawdown5678 810558 807 666 863Contribution from the parties 4 276 9334 276 933 4 276 9331In the light of the unparalleledeffectiveness of the Montreal Protocol, the parties express their strong desire to ensure continued leadership and consistency in the OzoneSecretariat during the period leading up to2015, which is a critical period for the implementation of the most recent adjustment to that treaty. There is a pressing need to retain thecurrent Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat through 2015 to provide thisleadership and consistency during this critical period. The parties therefore request the President ofthe Bureau of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties to workwith the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme to explore any means to retain the currentExecutive Secretary through 2015 and to conveyto the Secretary-General of the United Nations the parties’ request to find means to extend the tenure of the current ExecutiveSecretary of the Ozone Secretariat through 2015. The parties authorize the use of budget line transfers of funds without increasing the size of the budget if such transfers are necessaryto facilitate the extension. Regardless of any change in the post of Executive Secretary that may be used to achieve the extension through 2015, the position will revert to that of anon-extended D-2 position at the end of 2015 or, if theincumbent leaves earlier, at that earlier date.2 An amount up to $400,000 had been added to the 2010 budget line toaccommodate the cost of additional activities discussed bythe Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties.Expenditure against this activity was $50,000; hence budget line 1321 in 2010 is beingreduced by $350,000. The savings revertto the Trust Fund. The parties request the OzoneSecretariat, in cases where Open-ended Working Group and Multilateral Fund Executive Committee meetings are held back to back,to consult with the Multilateral Fund Secretariatwith a view to selecting meeting locations which are the most cost-effective, taking into account the budgets of both secretariats.3 The Twenty-Second Meeting of the Partiesapproved a total budget for an evaluation of the Financial Mechanism of up to $200,000 with the understanding that $70,000would be available to the Secretariat in 2011 to start the application and biddingprocess needed to hire an appropriate entityto undertake the evaluation and that the Twenty-ThirdMeeting of the Parties would decide on the funding source for the balance of the budget for the evaluation.4 The budget line covers the participationof Technology and Economic Assessment Panel experts to enable the timely completionof the work requested by the parties.5 Drawdown levels were set with a viewto maintaining the level of contributionsconstant through 2013. A drawdown for 2012 has been included by the Secretariat only forinformation. The amount may be changed bythe parties when the budget proposals for2012 and 2013 are presented for consideration in 2011.UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

48 

## Annex II

Trust Fund for the Montreal Protoc ol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Scale of contributions by the parties for 2011 and 2012 based on the United Nations scale of assessments
(General Assembly resolutio n 64/248 of 24 December 2009 with a maximum assessment rate of 22 per cent)
(in United States dollars)

Name of party UN scale of assessment for

2010–2012 Adjusted UN scale to exclude non-contributors Adjusted UN scale with 22%

maximum assessment rate

considered 2011 contributions by parties Indicative 2012 contributions by parties

1. Afghanistan 0.004 0.000 0.000 — —

2. Albania 0.010 0.000 0.000 — —

3. Algeria 0.128 0.128 0.128 5 465 5 465

4. Andorra 0.007 0.000 0.000 — —

5. Angola 0.010 0.000 0.000 — —

6. Antigua and Barbuda 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

7. Argentina 0.287 0.287 0.287 12 255 12 255

8. Armenia 0.005 0.000 0.000 — —

9. Australia 1.933 1.933 1.930 82 537 82 537

10. Austria 0.851 0.851 0.850 36 337 36 337

11. Azerbaijan 0.015 0.000 0.000 — —

12. Bahamas 0.018 0.000 0.000 — —

13. Bahrain 0.039 0.000 0.000 — —

14. Bangladesh 0.010 0.000 0.000 — —

15. Barbados 0.008 0.000 0.000 — —

16. Belarus 0.042 0.000 0.000 — —

17. Belgium 1.075 1.075 1.073 45 901 45 901

18. Belize 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

19. Benin 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

20. Bhutan 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

21. Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.007 0.000 0.000 — —

22. Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.014 0.000 0.000 — —

23. Botswana 0.018 0.000 0.000 — —

24. Brazil 1.611 1.611 1.608 68 788 68 788

25. Brunei Darussalam 0.028 0.000 0.000 — —

26. Bulgaria 0.038 0.000 0.000 — —

27. Burkina Faso 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

28. Burundi 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

29. Cambodia 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

30. Cameroon 0.011 0.000 0.000 — —

31. Canada 3.207 3.207 3.202 136 935 136 935

32. Cape Verde 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

33. Central African Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

49 Name of party UN scale of assessment for

2010–2012 Adjusted UN scale to exclude non-contributors Adjusted UN scale with 22%

maximum assessment rate

considered 2011 contributions by parties Indicative 2012 contributions by parties

34. Chad 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

35. Chile 0.236 0.236 0.236 10 077 10 077

36. China 3.189 3.189 3.184 136 167 136 167

37. Colombia 0.144 0.144 0.144 6 149 6 149

38. Comoros 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

39. Congo 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

40. Cook Islands - 0.000 0.000 — —

41. Costa Rica 0.034 0.000 0.000 — —

42. Côte d'Ivoire 0.010 0.000 0.000 — —

43. Croatia 0.097 0.000 0.000 — —

44. Cuba 0.071 0.000 0.000 — —

45. Cyprus 0.046 0.000 0.000 — —

46. Czech Republic 0.349 0.349 0.348 14 902 14 902

47. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 0.007 0.000 0.000 — —

48. Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

49. Denmark 0.736 0.736 0.735 31 426 31 426

50. Djibouti 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

51. Dominica 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

52. Dominican Republic 0.042 0.000 0.000 — —

53. Ecuador 0.040 0.000 0.000 — —

54. Egypt 0.094 0.000 0.000 — —

55. El Salvador 0.019 0.000 0.000 — —

56. Equatorial Guinea 0.008 0.000 0.000 — —

57. Eritrea 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

58. Estonia 0.040 0.000 0.000 — —

59. Ethiopia 0.008 0.000 0.000 — —

60. European Union 2.500 2.500 2.496 106 747 106 747

61. Fiji 0.004 0.000 0.000 — —

62. Finland 0.566 0.566 0.565 24 168 24 168

63. France 6.123 6.123 6.113 261 445 261 445

64. Gabon 0.014 0.000 0.000 — —

65. Gambia 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

66. Georgia 0.006 0.000 0.000 — —

67. Germany 8.018 8.018 8.005 342 360 342 360

68. Ghana 0.006 0.000 0.000 — —

69. Greece 0.691 0.691 0.690 29 505 29 505

70. Grenada 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

71. Guatemala 0.028 0.000 0.000 — —

72. Guinea 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

73. Guinea-Bissau 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

74. Guyana 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

75. Haiti 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

76. Holy See 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

50 Name of party UN scale of assessment for

2010–2012 Adjusted UN scale to exclude non-contributors Adjusted UN scale with 22%

maximum assessment rate

considered 2011 contributions by parties Indicative 2012 contributions by parties

77. Honduras 0.008 0.000 0.000 — —

78. Hungary 0.291 0.291 0.291 12 425 12 425

79. Iceland 0.042 0.000 0.000 — —

80. India 0.534 0.534 0.533 22 801 22 801

81. Indonesia 0.238 0.238 0.238 10 162 10 162

82. Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.233 0.233 0.233 9 949 9 949

83. Iraq 0.020 0.000 0.000 — —

84. Ireland 0.498 0.498 0.497 21 264 21 264

85. Israel 0.384 0.384 0.383 16 396 16 396

86. Italy 4.999 4.999 4.991 213 452 213 452

87. Jamaica 0.014 0.000 0.000 — —

88. Japan 12.530 12.530 12.509 535 017 535 017

89. Jordan 0.014 0.000 0.000 — —

90. Kazakhstan 0.076 0.000 0.000 — —

91. Kenya 0.012 0.000 0.000 — —

92. Kiribati 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

93. Kuwait 0.263 0.263 0.263 11 230 11 230

94. Kyrgyzstan 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

95. Lao People’s Democratic Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

96. Latvia 0.038 0.000 0.000 — —

97. Lebanon 0.033 0.000 0.000 — —

98. Lesotho 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

99. Liberia 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

100. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0.129 0.129 0.129 5 508 5 508

101. Liechtenstein 0.009 0.000 0.000 — —

102. Lithuania 0.065 0.000 0.000 — —

103. Luxembourg 0.090 0.000 0.000 — —

104. Madagascar 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

105. Malawi 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

106. Malaysia 0.253 0.253 0.253 10 803 10 803

107. Maldives 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

108. Mali 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

109. Malta 0.017 0.000 0.000 — —

110. Marshall Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

111. Mauritania 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

112. Mauritius 0.011 0.000 0.000 — —

113. Mexico 2.356 2.356 2.352 100 599 100 599

114. Micronesia (Federated States of) 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

115. Monaco 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

116. Mongolia 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

117. Montenegro 0.004 0.000 0.000 — —

118. Morocco 0.058 0.000 0.000 — —

119. Mozambique 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

51 Name of party UN scale of assessment for

2010–2012 Adjusted UN scale to exclude non-contributors Adjusted UN scale with 22%

maximum assessment rate

considered 2011 contributions by parties Indicative 2012 contributions by parties

120. Myanmar 0.006 0.000 0.000 — —

121. Namibia 0.008 0.000 0.000 — —

122. Nauru 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

123. Nepal 0.006 0.000 0.000 — —

124. Netherlands 1.855 1.855 1.852 79 206 79 206

125. New Zealand 0.273 0.273 0.273 11 657 11 657

126. Nicaragua 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

127. Niger 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

128. Nigeria 0.078 0.000 0.000 — —

129. Niue

- 0.000 0.000 — — 130. Norway 0.871 0.871 0.870 37 191 37 191

131. Oman 0.086 0.000 0.000 — —

132. Pakistan 0.082 0.000 0.000 — —

133. Palau 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

134. Panama 0.022 0.000 0.000 — —

135. Papua New Guinea 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

136. Paraguay 0.007 0.000 0.000 — —

137. Peru 0.090 0.000 0.000 — —

138. Philippines 0.090 0.000 0.000 — —

139. Poland 0.828 0.828 0.827 35 355 35 355

140. Portugal 0.511 0.511 0.510 21 819 21 819

141. Qatar 0.135 0.135 0.135 5 764 5 764

142. Republic of Korea 2.260 2.260 2.256 96 499 96 499

143. Republic of Moldova 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

144. Romania 0.177 0.177 0.177 7 558 7 558

145. Russian Federation 1.602 1.602 1.599 68 404 68 404

146. Rwanda 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

147. Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

148. Saint Lucia 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

149. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

150. Samoa 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

151. San Marino 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

152. Sao Tome and Principe 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

153. Saudi Arabia 0.830 0.830 0.829 35 440 35 440

154. Senegal 0.006 0.000 0.000 — —

155. Serbia 0.037 0.000 0.000 — —

156. Seychelles 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

157. Sierra Leone 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

158. Singapore 0.335 0.335 0.334 14 304 14 304

159. Slovakia 0.142 0.142 0.142 6 063 6 063

160. Slovenia 0.103 0.103 0.103 4 398 4 398

161. Solomon Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

162. Somalia 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

52 Name of party UN scale of assessment for

2010–2012 Adjusted UN scale to exclude non-contributors Adjusted UN scale with 22%

maximum assessment rate

considered 2011 contributions by parties Indicative 2012 contributions by parties

163. South Africa 0.385 0.385 0.384 16 439 16 439

164. Spain 3.177 3.177 3.172 135 654 135 654

165. Sri Lanka 0.019 0.000 0.000 — —

166. Sudan 0.010 0.000 0.000 — —

167. Suriname 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

168. Swaziland 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —

169. Sweden 1.064 1.064 1.062 45 432 45 432

170. Switzerland 1.130 1.130 1.128 48 250 48 250

171. Syrian Arab Republic 0.025 0.000 0.000 — —

172. Tajikistan 0.002 0.000 0.000 — —

173. Thailand 0.209 0.209 0.209 8 924 8 924

174. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.007 0.000 0.000 — —

175. Timor-Leste 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

176. Togo 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

177. Tonga 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

178. Trinidad and Tobago 0.044 0.000 0.000 — —

179. Tunisia 0.030 0.000 0.000 — —

180. Turkey 0.617 0.617 0.616 26 345 26 345

181. Turkmenistan 0.026 0.000 0.000 — —

182. Tuvalu 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

183. Uganda 0.006 0.000 0.000 — —

184. Ukraine 0.087 0.000 0.000 — —

185. United Arab Emirates 0.391 0.391 0.390 16 695 16 695

186. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 6.604 6.604 6.593 281 983 281 983

187. United Republic of Tanzania 0.008 0.000 0.000 — —

188. United States of America 22.000 22.000 21.964 939 375 939 375

189. Uruguay 0.027 0.000 0.000 — —

190. Uzbekistan 0.010 0.000 0.000 — —

191. Vanuatu 0.001 0.000 0.000 — —

192. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 0.314 0.314 0.313 13 407 13 407

193. Viet Nam 0.033 0.000 0.000 — —

194. Yemen 0.010 0.000 0.000 — —

195. Zambia 0.004 0.000 0.000 — —

196. Zimbabwe 0.003 0.000 0.000 — —
Total 102.501 100.165 100.000 4 276 933 4 276 933UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/9

53 

## Annex III

Declaration on the global transition away from hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

Recognizing that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are repl acements for ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol, and that the projected increase in their use is a major challenge for the world’s climate system that mu st be addressed through concerted international action,
Recognizing also that the Montreal Protocol is well-suited to making progress in replacing hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) with low-global warming potential alternatives, Mindful that certain high-global warming potential alternatives to HCFCs and other ozone-depleting substances are covered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol and that action under the Montreal Protocol should not have the effect of exempting them from the scope of the commitments contained thereunder,

Interested in harmonizing appropriate policies toward a global transition from HCFCs to environmentally sound alternatives,
Encourage all Parties to promote policies and measures aimed at selecting low-GWP alternatives to HCFCs and other ozone-depleting substances;;

Declare our intent to pursue further action under the Montreal Protocol aimed at transitioning the world to environmentally sound alternatives to HCFCs and CFCs. Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Austria, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Is lands, Costa Rica, Cy prus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, European Union, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ja pan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzst an, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Ma uritius, Macedonia, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Somalia, Sri Lank a, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Viet Nam.

_______________________