K1174404 150212 

UNITED 

NATIONS EP

UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7- 

UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

United Nations 

Environment 

Programme

Distr.: General 

8 December 2011 

Original: English 

Ninth meeting of the Conference of 

the Parties to the Vienna Convention 

for the Protection of the Ozone Layer 

Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to 

the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Bali, Indonesia, 21–25 November 2011 

Report of the combined ninth meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties to the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone 

Layer and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

 Introduction 

1. The combined ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and 

the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol was held at the Bali Nusa Dua 

Convention Centre in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, from 21 to 25 November 2011. It consisted of a 

preparatory segment, held from 21 to 23 November, and a high-level segment, held on 24 and 

25 November. The meeting was opened at 10.20 a.m. on Monday, 21 November 2011. 

2. The present report reflects the deliberations under the items included on the single agenda used 

for the combined meeting; any references to the current meeting should be understood to denote the 

combined meeting of the two bodies. 

 Part one: preparatory segment 

 I. Opening of the preparatory segment 

3. The preparatory segment of the meeting began with welcoming remarks by a master of 

ceremonies, a performance of traditional Indonesian dance, an introductory address by Mr. Marco 

González, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat, and an opening statement by Mr. Balthasar 

Kambuaya, State Minister for the Environment of Indonesia. 

4. In his statement, Mr. González welcomed the participants and thanked the Government of 

Indonesia for hosting the meeting. He drew attention to the historical achievements of the Montreal 

Protocol, recalling that the parties to the Protocol had, in 1990, agreed to accelerate the control of 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons and carbon tetrachloride in a manner that shifted the fundamental 

strategy of the instrument from phase-down to phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, with the goal 

of total phase-out of controlled production and consumption by 2010. He then announced that over 

95 per cent of parties had reported data for 2010, and all had reported full compliance with the 

phase-out of controlled uses of CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride. As a consequence, over 98 per 

cent of ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol had been phased out, which 

represented a considerable achievement. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

2

5. There was, however, no room for complacency. It was becoming more apparent that a 

synergistic approach was needed to respond to the complexities of the global environment, including 

the increasingly recognized interlinkages between ozone and climate change issues. It was therefore 

important to maintain commitment to phasing out ozone-depleting substances and to be vigilant in 

monitoring the global atmospheric environment. In that regard, efforts should be made to ensure that 

the appropriate programmes and monitoring tools were in place to maintain historical records of the 

levels of ozone-depleting substances in the stratosphere. In addition, he stressed that the phase-out of 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) would present an opportunity to make the transition to more 

benign substances and energy-efficient technologies that would both protect the ozone layer and 

provide climate benefits, thus contributing to sustainable development. Continuing that process would 

require a robust replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal 

Protocol. Finally, he drew attention to other important issues on the agenda of the current meeting, 

including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), exemptions, the work of the assessment panels and the 

treatment of ozone-depleting substances used to service ships. 

6. Mr. Kambuaya welcomed the participants to Bali, saying that his country had witnessed a 

defining moment in the history of climate change negotiations with the adoption of the Bali Road Map 

and Bali Action Plan at the thirteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change, in December 2007. He expressed the hope that the current 

meeting would result in significant measures to protect the ozone layer. Indonesia viewed the Montreal 

Protocol as a good example of how an international treaty could be implemented effectively and 

universally, thanks to the support and commitment of its signatory parties. He outlined the control 

measures that Indonesia had undertaken to fulfil its obligations under the protocol, noting that it had 

achieved a complete phase-out in advance of the stipulated deadline of 2010 and that the Executive 

Committee of the Multilateral Fund had approved the country’s HCFC phase-out management plan. 

7. He drew attention to the new challenges facing the Montreal Protocol, including how to deal 

with those substances that had a low ozone-depletion potential but a high global-warming potential. 

Such challenges meant that it was necessary to think and act in a comprehensive and holistic manner, 

as demonstrated by Indonesia’s success in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions while maintaining high 

levels of economic growth. Indonesia recognized that the phase-out of HCFCs should be undertaken 

synergistically with other efforts to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future 

generations. He reported that as part of its effort to promote synergy and cooperation, Indonesia had 

developed for the consideration of the parties a declaration on the transition to 

low-global-warming-potential alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. In conclusion, he thanked all 

those involved in organizing the meeting and wished the participants fruitful and productive 

deliberations. 

8. Following his statement, Mr. Kambuaya struck a ceremonial gong to mark the official opening 

of the meeting. 

 II. Organizational matters 

 A. Attendance 

9. The combined ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and 

Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol was attended by representatives of the 

following parties to the two instruments: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, 

Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, China, 

Colombia, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, 

Ethiopia, European Union, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Grenada, Guinea, 

Guinea-Bissau, Holy See, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, 

Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, 

Lesotho, Lithuania, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, 

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

Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, 

Philippines, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and 

Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, 

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

Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United 

Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

3

Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, 

Zimbabwe. 

10. A representative of South Sudan attended the meeting as an observer. 

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

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Global Environment Facility, Secretariat 

of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Development 

Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Industrial Development 

Organization, World Bank. 

12. Representatives of the following intergovernmental, non-governmental and industry bodies 

attended the meeting as observers: African Development Co. for Trade, Alliance for Responsible 

Atmospheric Policy, Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., Ausk International LLC, BASF, California Citrus Quality 

Council, California Strawberry Commission, Changshu 3F Fluorochemical Industry Co. Ltd., 

Chemtura Corporation, Children’s Hospital, China Association of Fluorine and Silicone Industry, 

China Association of Organofluorine and Silicone Material Industry, China Fluoro Technology Co. 

Ltd., Crop Protection Coalition, CYDSA, Daikin Industries, Ltd., Danish Environmental Protection 

Agency, Dow AgroSciences LLC, DuPont International, Emergent Ventures India (EVI), 

Environmental Investigation Agency, Foam Supplies Inc., Free Trade Co., GIZ Proklima, Green 

Cooling Association, Greenpeace International, Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited, HARMED, ICF 

International, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Institute for Governance and Sustainable 

Development, International Institute of Refrigeration, Japan Fluorocarbon Manufacturers Association, 

Jiangsu Kangtai Fluorine Chemical Co. Ltd., K-Global Corporation, Korea Specialty Chemical 

Industry, Kyoto University, M. De Hondt BVBA, Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry Association, 

MEBROM, MEBROM PTY Ltd., Myland Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, Navin Fluorine 

International Limited, NIFLON, Nybra Consulting, OSP Advantage System, Panasonic Corporation, 

Princeton University, PT. Grasse Arum Lestari, Refrigerants Australia, Shecco, Sinochem Lantian Co. 

Ltd., Smardt Inc., SRF Limited, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, Teijin 

Aramid BV, TouchDown Consulting, Trans-Mond Environment Ltd, Yingpeng Chemical Co. Ltd., 

Zhejiang Chemical Industry Research Institute, Zhejiang Fluorescence Chemical Co. Ltd., Zhejiang 

Juhua Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Quhua Flour-Chemistry Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co. 

Ltd., 3M Electronics. 

 B. Adoption of the agenda of the preparatory segment 

13. The following agenda for the preparatory segment was adopted on the basis of the provisional 

agenda contained in document UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/1-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/1: 

1. Opening of the preparatory segment: 

(a) Statement by representative(s) of the Government of Indonesia; 

(b) Statement 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. Combined Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol issues: 

(a) Financial reports and budgets of the trust funds for the Vienna Convention and 

the Montreal Protocol; 

(b) Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the 

amendments to the Montreal Protocol. 

4. Montreal Protocol issues: 

(a) Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal 

Protocol: 

(i) Supplemental report of the Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel replenishment task force; 

(ii) Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism; 

(b) Issues related to exemptions from Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol: 

(i) Nominations for 2012 and 2013 for essential-use exemptions; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

4

(ii) Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 

applications in the Russian Federation; 

(iii) Nominations for 2012 and 2013 critical-use exemptions; 

(iv) Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide; 

(v) Global laboratory and analytical-use exemption; 

(vi) Sustained mitigation of ozone-depleting-substance emissions from 

feedstock and process-agent uses; 

(c) Environmentally sound disposal of ozone-depleting substances; 

(d) Updating the nomination processes and recusal guidelines for the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel; 

(e) Treatment of ozone-depleting substances used to service ships; 

(f) Additional information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances; 

(g) Use of methyl bromide in Africa; 

(h) Proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol: 

(i) Proposed amendment by Canada, Mexico and the United States of 

America; 

(ii) Proposed amendment by the Federated States of Micronesia; 

(i) Potential areas of focus for the assessment panels’ 2014 quadrennial reports; 

(j) Phase-out of HFC-23 by-product emissions; 

(k) Status of Nepal relative to the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal 

Protocol; 

(l) Consideration of membership of Montreal Protocol bodies for 2012: 

(i) Members of the Implementation Committee; 

(ii) Members of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund; 

(iii) Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group; 

(iv) Endorsement of a new co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options 

Committee and a senior expert of the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel; 

(m) Compliance and reporting issues considered by the Implementation 

Committee. 

5. Vienna Convention issues: 

(a) Report of the eighth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers of the Parties to 

the Vienna Convention; 

(b) Status of the General Trust Fund for Financing Activities on Research and 

Systematic Observations Relevant to the Vienna Convention. 

6. Other matters. 

14. During the adoption of the agenda for the preparatory segment the parties agreed to take up 

under agenda item 6, “Other matters”, or under other items of the agenda the question of mobilizing 

funds from sources other than the Multilateral Fund to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs; difficulties 

encountered by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol when 

phasing out methyl bromide; and a proposed Bali declaration on achieving the transition to 

low-global-warming-potential alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. The parties also agreed to 

take up the composition, functions and grades of the staff of the Montreal Protocol Secretariat under 

item 3 (a), “Financial reports and budgets of the trust funds for the Vienna Convention and the 

Montreal Protocol”; and inflation adjustments for national institutional strengthening programmes 

under agenda item 4 (a), “Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the 

Montreal Protocol”. 

15. The discussion on the adoption of the agenda included deliberations on the merits of items 

4 (h) and 4 (j) of the provisional agenda, “Proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol” and 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

5

“Phase-out of HFC-23 by-product emissions”, respectively. One representative, supported by several 

others, said that HFCs were not ozone-depleting substances and that they therefore lay outside the 

scope of the Montreal Protocol and should not be on the agenda of meetings under the Protocol, 

especially given the failure to reach consensus on them at several earlier meetings. He said that 

discussion of HFC-related matters reduced the time available for discussion of the many items that 

were of direct relevance to the implementation of the Protocol and should be prioritized. One 

representative said that HFC-related matters had been discussed informally at earlier meetings, and 

that such an approach at the current meeting would allow the parties to concentrate on issues that lay 

within the mandate of the Protocol. Another representative argued that discussion of HFCs should be 

left to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

16. Other representatives supported inclusion of HFC-related items on the agenda. Several noted 

that the proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol had been submitted in accordance with the 

rules of procedure of the Montreal Protocol and the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the 

Ozone Layer and said that the matter was therefore properly on the agenda. One representative, 

supported by others, said that the parties differed in their priorities. Many said that the proposed 

amendment and the draft decision on HFC-23 by-product emissions were important priorities and that, 

as they always did for such important matters, the parties should find the time to discuss them; 

exchanging views helped to foster understanding, in keeping with the traditions of the Protocol. 

Another representative recalled that at the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties 91 parties had signed 

a declaration requesting the parties to give further consideration to HFCs. One representative pointed 

out that the parties to the Protocol had often discussed whether alternatives to ozone-depleting 

substances would have negative effects on the environment, other than their impact on the ozone layer, 

and had adopted decision XIX/6, which encouraged parties to take into account the impact of HCFC 

alternatives on the environment, including in particular the climate. 

17. One representative said that the primary issue was one of principle: discussion under the 

Montreal Protocol of a substance that lay within the purview of the Kyoto Protocol to the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change could have negative legal, technical and policy 

implications. Another representative, however, said that it was equally a matter of principle that the 

problem of HFCs had arisen from actions taken under the Montreal Protocol and that parties therefore 

had a legal and moral obligation to rectify the issue. 

18. Following the discussion, the Co-Chair said that as items 4 (h) and 4 (j) had been placed on the 

agenda in accordance with the rules of procedure, and there was no consensus to remove them, they 

would remain on the agenda. 

 C. Officers 

19. The preparatory segment of the combined meeting was co-chaired by Ms. Gudi Alkemade 

(Netherlands) and Mr. Ndiaye Cheikh Sylla (Senegal), co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 

 D. Organization of work 

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

necessary. 

 III. Combined Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol issues 

 A. Financial reports and budgets of the trust funds for the Vienna Convention 

and the Montreal Protocol 

21. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair drew attention to the approved and proposed budgets set 

out in documents UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/4 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/4 and the financial reports set out in 

documents UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/4/Add.1 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/4/Add.1. He noted that it had been the 

practice of the parties at past meetings to establish a budget committee to review budget-related 

documents and prepare one or more draft decisions on budgetary matters. In accordance with that 

practice, the parties agreed to establish a budget committee, chaired by Mr. Alessandro Peru (Italy), to 

agree on budgets for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol trust funds and to prepare draft 

decisions on financial matters for the Convention and the Protocol. 

22. Subsequently, the chair of the budget committee presented conference room papers containing 

consensus draft decisions on the financial report and budget of the trust fund for the Montreal Protocol 

and on the financial report and budget of the trust fund for the Vienna Convention. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

6

23. During the discussion of budgetary matters, Mr. Michael Church, President of the Bureau of 

the Twenty-First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, reported that, in accordance with the 

wishes of the parties expressed at previous meetings, discussions had been held with the Executive 

Director of UNEP and the Secretary-General of the United Nations on extending the mandate of 

Mr. González as Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat. As a result, the period of tenure of 

Mr. González as Executive Secretary had been extended to October 2013. He noted that as this date 

was not consistent with the term of extension that had been requested by the parties in decision 

XXII/21, the parties might wish to reconsider this issue at an appropriate time. 

24. The parties took note of Mr. Church’s statement and approved the draft financial and 

budgetary decisions for further consideration and adoption during the high-level segment. 

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

the amendments to the Montreal Protocol 

25. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that at each meeting the parties reviewed the status 

of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the amendments to the Montreal 

Protocol. He drew attention to the draft decisions on the matter set out in document 

UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/3-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/3. 

26. The parties agreed that the draft decisions should be updated by the Secretariat for 

consideration and adoption during the high-level segment 

 IV. Montreal Protocol issues 

 A. Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the 

Montreal Protocol 

 1. Supplemental report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel replenishment task 

force 

27. Mr. Lambert Kuijpers, Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, 

Ms. Shiqiu Zhang, co-chair of the Panel’s replenishment task force, and Mr. Daniel Colbourne, 

member of the task force, made a presentation on the task force’s supplemental report on the 

replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the period 2012–2014. A summary of the presentation, as 

submitted by the presenters and without formal editing, is set out in annex VI to the present report. 

28. Following the presentation Mr. Kuijpers responded to several requests for clarification. 

Regarding swing plant funding, he said that although the supplemental report indicated that 

compensation for swing plants was not included, an addendum issued in November clarified that it 

was. He further specified that the option of full funding and the option of no funding for swing plant 

closures had both been considered in the May 2011 replenishment report. 

29. Asked about funding stability, he explained that the replenishment task force had calculated 

consumption funding for stage I HCFC phase-out management plans and estimated funding for stage 

II plans and had then looked at how various options would contribute to a more stable funding profile. 

He said that chapter 6 of the supplemental report provided more details on options for ensuring more 

stable funding. 

30. Regarding the cost effectiveness of phasing out ozone-depleting substances in the production 

sector, he said that while only two scenarios had been presented, more scenario tables could be 

prepared very quickly and the task force would be happy to do so upon request. 

31. Responding to a query about cost estimates for converting plants from non-feedstock to 

feedstock production, he explained that the task force lacked the experience and technical information 

needed to be certain that all conversions could be achieved at a given cost level. Investigations with 

HCFC-22 manufacturers had revealed, however, that in principle such conversions should pose no 

problems. 

32. He expressed agreement with one representative that there was significant uncertainty and lack 

of experience in estimating future production sector funding. He explained that, in its analysis, the task 

force had chosen not to postpone tranches of production sector funding to the second or third 

trienniums because consumption expenditure was already due to increase in later years, creating an 

imbalance that should not be exacerbated. He added that the task force had evaluated additional 

scenarios for funding requirements but had been unable to include them all in its presentation at the 

current meeting. They were, however, set out in the supplemental report. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

7

33. One representative said that 2012–2014 was a key period for accelerating HCFC phase-out, 

that stable and efficient funding was therefore important, and that replenishment of the Multilateral 

Fund should be based on the practical needs of developing countries. He said that the current 

international economic situation made it even more important than usual to show political will and 

commitment and expressed the hope that developed countries understood the importance of production 

sector control measures and sustained funding sufficient to enable compliance. He also said that the 

conditions of developing countries should be taken fully into account in assessing their compliance. 

34. Several representatives called attention to the variance in funding requirement estimates for the 

Multilateral Fund during the 2012–2014 triennium. The May 2011 report of the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel had estimated a total requirement of $390–477 million, and the 

subsequent reassessment of the estimate was $460–540 million. Representatives said that they would 

voice concerns about the increase in the estimated funding requirement during negotiations on the 

replenishment of the Multilateral Fund. One representative also said that the analysis in the 

supplemental report included too few scenarios and did not adequately explain large effects on funding 

estimates resulting from small differences in the underlying assumptions. 

35. Many representatives of parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal 

Protocol said that, while the Multilateral Fund was the cornerstone of the Protocol’s success, in the 

current global economic climate it was difficult to commit to substantial increases in funding. Some 

representatives said too that in times of financial difficulty it was important that the Multilateral Fund 

should be as cost effective as possible. 

36. The representative of Japan observed that his country had been stricken by an earthquake, a 

tsunami and a nuclear disaster in early 2011 and that the response to those disasters was a priority for 

his Government, particularly given the global economic crisis. He further noted that there had been no 

change in the composition of countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol despite 

rapid economic progress in some of those countries. Flexibility would be needed in negotiations on the 

replenishment, including consideration of voluntary contributions from parties operating under 

paragraph 1 of Article 5 and parties not so operating, or private funding. 

37. One representative, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, expressed concern regarding 

the new replenishment figures contained in the supplemental report. He said that while there was 

limited scope for variations in estimated funding for the consumption sector, the options for the 

production sector provided in chapter 6 of the supplemental report created a sound basis for 

negotiation. He congratulated China and other parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for 

their recent agreement to use funds from the Multilateral Fund to reduce or eliminate HCFCs. He said 

that such an arrangement should be continued in the coming replenishment in accordance with 

decision XIX/6, in a manner that would enable all contributing countries to meet their obligations 

taking into account the substantial economic constraints that some of them were facing. He 

emphasized that as economically viable and technically feasible low-GWP alternatives existed for 

many applications, a transition to high-GWP alternatives should be avoided. 

38. One representative of a non-governmental organization said that parties operating under 

paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol were strongly committed to shifting to alternatives with lower 

global-warming potential. Noting that the purpose of the Montreal Protocol was to protect the 

environment, he said that the use of substances harmful to the environment such as HFCs would 

undermine that purpose. 

39. The parties agreed to establish a contact group, co-chaired by Ms. Donnalyn Charles 

(Saint Lucia) and Mr. Jozef Buys (Belgium), to consider the matter of replenishment further. All 

parties were invited to take part in the initial deliberations of the contact group. 

40. Following initial sessions of the contact group, the Co-Chair reported that the contact group 

had agreed that its membership should be reduced in size, comprising the two co-chairs and the 

representatives of Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, 

France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Sweden, 

Switzerland and the United States of America. He also said that at its initial meetings the contact 

group had addressed all the non-HCFC production elements of the replenishment. 

41. Subsequently, the representative of Argentina formally introduced its draft decision on 

accounting for inflation in funding institutional strengthening projects. The proposal was supported by 

the representatives of Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay. The Meeting of the Parties agreed that further 

consideration of the draft decision would take place in the contact group on replenishment. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

8

42. Following the work of the contact group the parties approved for consideration and adoption 

during the high-level segment a draft decision agreed by the contact group on the replenishment of the 

Multilateral Fund for the period 2012–2014. 

43. The representative of India introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on 

guidelines for the funding of HCFC production facilities. He recalled that the nineteenth Meeting of 

the Parties had by its decision XIX/6 decided to accelerate the phase-out of production and 

consumption of HCFCs by 10 years. He said that in paragraph 5 of that decision the parties had agreed 

that the funding available through the Multilateral Fund in upcoming replenishments would be stable 

and sufficient to meet all agreed incremental costs to enable parties operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 to comply with the accelerated phase-out schedule both for production and consumption. 

Furthermore, he said, decision XIX/6 was very clear on funding for second conversions in respect of 

both production and consumption and the parties had accordingly directed the Executive Committee of 

the Multilateral Fund to make necessary changes to the eligibility criteria related to post-1995 facilities 

and second conversions. 

44. He said that the accelerated phase-out of production and consumption undertaken pursuant to 

decision XIX/6 had significant adverse impacts on countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, 

as decision XIX/6 had significantly advanced the applicable control measures, bringing the baseline 

years forward from 2015 to 2009 and 2010 and the freeze date forward from 2016 to 2013. 

Corresponding changes in the step-wise phase-out of HCFCs would have major adverse implications 

for industry and the economy in his country. He said that although more than four years had passed, 

the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund had been unable to finalize policy guidelines for 

phasing out HCFC-22 production facilities, including HCFC-22 swing production plants. Such plants 

in countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 were eligible for funding under decision XIX/6 

and India had therefore prepared the draft decision for consideration at the current meeting. 

45. During the ensuing discussion, several representatives opposed consideration of the draft 

decision. One representative, supported by others, said that the Executive Committee subgroup on the 

production sector had made significant progress in developing the guidelines for the production sector 

and should complete its work. In addition, the language of the draft decision under consideration 

differed from that in decision XIX/6 and was therefore not an appropriate basis for discussion. Nor 

was it clear under which item the meeting might consider the draft decision; it had not been put 

forward for consideration under other matters during the adoption of the agenda, and it was not 

relevant to the deliberations under item 4 (a) on replenishment. 

46. Several representatives supported consideration of the draft decision. One representative, 

supported by others, said that the provision of funding for HCFC production facilities was very 

relevant to the discussion on replenishment of the Multilateral Fund and was of great importance for 

parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 as they sought to comply with the control measures 

for HCFC production. Also, while the Executive Committee’s subgroup on the production sector was 

considering that matter, the Meeting of the Parties had the authority, under paragraph 4 of Article 10 

of the Montreal Protocol, to issue overall policy instructions to the Executive Committee. Another 

representative said that if the matter was not given due consideration at the current meeting then 

parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 would be unable to comply with decision XIX/6. 

47. The Co-Chair noted that the draft decision had not been raised during the adoption of the 

agenda and that there was no consensus to discuss it further. Accordingly he ruled that, as the parties 

were unlikely to achieve consensus on the draft decision, he would not consider any further discussion 

of the issue at the current meeting. 

48. Following the Co-Chair’s ruling, the representative of India said that in his view the parties 

had agreed that the draft decision submitted by his country would be discussed in the contact group on 

replenishment and objected to the fact that it had not been discussed there. He asked that the draft 

decision should be attached as annex to the present report; the parties having not expressed objection, 

the draft decision is set out in annex VII. He also said that if funding were not provided for closing 

HCFC swing production plants in countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol 

then those countries would continue to produce HCFC-22 in accordance with the phase-out schedule 

in effect prior to the adoption of decision XIX/6, that is, based on a 2015 baseline, a freeze in 2016 at 

the 2015 baseline level and a complete production phase-out in 2040. 

 2. Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism 

49. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair noted that parties had used a fixed-exchange-rate 

mechanism to facilitate payments under the Multilateral Fund, resulting in a net increase in actual 

funds available. At its thirty-first meeting, the contact group established by the Open-ended Working 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

9

Group had recommended extending the use of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism during the 

2012–2014 triennium. A draft decision on the matter was contained in document 

UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/3-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/3 (draft decision B). 

50. One representative expressed strong support for extending the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism, 

following which the parties approved the draft decision for consideration and adoption during the 

high-level segment. 

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

 1. Nominations for 2012 and 2013 for essential-use exemptions 

51. Mr. Ashley Woodcock, co-chair of the Medical Technical Options Committee, provided a 

presentation on the Committee’s findings with regard to the nominations for 2012 and 2013 

essential-use exemptions and updated the parties on the situations in China and the United States of 

America regarding the cessation of use of some types of CFC-free metered-dosed inhalers. A summary 

of the presentation, as submitted by the Committee and without formal editing, is set out in annex VI 

to the present report. 

52. Several representatives expressed satisfaction that the number of requests for essential-use 

nominations had continued to decline. One representative, however, expressed regret that his country’s 

request that the Medical Technical Options Committee should provide further information on 

CFC-based metered-dose inhalers intersessionally (as reflected in paragraph 89 of the report of the 

thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group) had not been fulfilled. 

53. One representative said that his country had only been able to convert one facility to producing 

metered-dose inhalers using medical-grade alternatives to CFCs. While his country was committed to 

converting its remaining production facilities, he requested the approval of its essential-use 

nomination, saying that metered-dose inhalers were required to treat the large number of cases of 

asthma in his country. He said that his country was making progress in eliminating CFC propellants 

and expected to cease using them altogether by 2013. 

54. Another representative said that his country had made administrative and technological 

progress in eliminating CFC propellants but that the continued high cost of alternatives meant that the 

use of CFCs was still necessary and that accordingly he would submit a draft decision on essential-use 

exemptions for consideration by the parties. 

55. Other representatives said that alternatives to CFCs were available and that several other issues 

also needed to be addressed, such as the use of stockpiles. One representative said that the draft 

decision on essential-use nominations should address the issue of pharmaceutical grade CFCs and 

suggest a strategy to encourage parties to find alternatives to CFCs and develop regulations to ban 

their sale and use. 

56. The Executive Secretary reported that on 3 August 2011 the Secretariat had received an urgent 

request from Mexico for an emergency use authorization for 6 tonnes of CFC-12 for metered-dose 

inhalers. He said that, in consultation with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the 

Secretariat had authorized that emergency use and that Mexico had voluntarily decided to compensate 

for that consumption by destroying the same amount of CFC-11 from stockpiles. 

57. Following the discussion it was agreed that interested parties would work together on a draft 

decision on essential-use exemption nominations for 2012. 

58. Subsequently, the representative of China introduced a revised version of the draft decision on 

essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 2012, noting that the essential-use 

authorization for 2012 for chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for Bangladesh required 

finalization. Some representatives expressed an interest in further consultations on the draft decision. 

59. Following those consultations the parties approved the draft decision for consideration and 

adoption during the high-level segment. 

 2. Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace applications in the 

Russian Federation 

60. Introducing the item the Co-Chair recalled that at the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended 

Working Group some concerns had been expressed about the Russian Federation’s essential-use 

nomination for aerospace purposes and that parties had agreed to discuss the matter intersessionally. 

61. At the current meeting one representative recalled that the Open-ended Working Group had 

discussed both the possible use of alternative solvents and the accelerated phase-out of CFC-113 by 

2016 and that he would like to see that understanding reflected in the decision to be adopted on the 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

10

matter. The representative of the Russian Federation, however, said that there were currently no 

alternatives available that would enable his country to phase out solvents completely. 

62. It was agreed that a number of interested representatives would discuss the matter informally. 

63. Following those discussions the parties approved a draft decision for consideration and 

adoption during the high-level segment. 

 3. Nominations for 2012 and 2013 critical-use exemptions 

64. Three of the four co-chairs of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, 

Mr. Mohamed Besri, Mr. Ian Porter, and Ms. Michelle Marcotte, provided a detailed presentation on 

the Committee’s findings in respect of the critical-use nominations for 2012 and 2013. A summary of 

the presentation, as submitted by the presenters and without formal editing, is set out in annex VI to 

the present report. 

65. During the ensuing discussion, the Co-Chair suggested that some parties might wish to pursue 

bilateral discussions with the Committee to discuss their own critical-use nominations or provide 

additional information. 

66. In response to a question about alternatives to methyl bromide, the Committee co-chairs said 

that several alternatives were currently available. They also noted that decisions on using stockpiles of 

methyl bromide were taken by the parties and not by the Committee, and that it was not the role of the 

Committee to persuade parties to use alternatives to methyl bromide in quarantine and pre-shipment 

uses. 

67. One representative said that by making available research on alternatives to methyl bromide 

the Committee would help those making requests for critical-use exemptions. He added that the rising 

use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes was a cause for concern and should 

be addressed through the Multilateral Fund. 

68. Many representatives expressed satisfaction at the decline in critical-use nominations and 

methyl bromide use. Several representatives expressed concern, however, regarding the growing 

number of minority reports prepared by members of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee with regard to critical-use nominations, the process by which the Committee generated its 

recommendations on such nominations and the inconsistent use of some figures in the current report. 

One representative asked for a detailed explanation of the components of the approval process and the 

indicators used by the Committee when assessing critical-use nominations. He also urged the 

Committee to work within its mandate. Another representative stressed that the Committee should 

seek to reach consensus in its deliberations. He also said that when reading the Committee’s report he 

had sometimes found it difficult to reach the same conclusions as the Committee and requested that 

more information should be provided on how the Committee reached its conclusions. He also 

expressed concern at the metrics presented by the Panel for economic feasibility and what he described 

as the arbitrary nature of the suggested figures, noting that the parties had not endorsed the approach 

used by the Committee. 

69. One representative recalled that his country had not requested an additional review of the 

recommendations of the committee for his country for 2011 but said that it disagreed with the 

conclusions of the minority report. Another representative expressed appreciation for the Committee’s 

request to reconsider the number of Committee meetings held each year. He said that although two 

meetings a year had made sense in the past, lower methyl bromide use meant that it might not be 

necessary for the Committee to continue to meet so frequently. He noted that his country had cut 

methyl bromide use by 97 per cent from its 1991 baseline and that it had withdrawn its request for a 

critical-use exemption for using methyl bromide in research. Research needs would be met from 

existing stockpiles, which were being rapidly drawn down and might be exhausted by 2013. He added 

that the Committee’s minority report for one use in his country had more accurately reflected the 

reality of methyl bromide use in his country than had the majority conclusion. Consequently he would 

be introducing a draft decision on that issue for the consideration of the parties. 

70. Several representatives expressed interest in the draft decision on critical uses, although one 

representative said that he hoped that it would not lead to an increase in critical-use nominations. One 

representative of a non-governmental organization expressed concern at what he said was a tendency 

to seek critical-use exemptions for production of methyl bromide instead of drawing down stockpiles, 

and he urged parties to use up their stocks before seeking exemptions. 

71. Following the discussions in plenary session and informal consultations the parties approved a 

draft decision on critical-use nominations for consideration and adoption during the high-level 

segment. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

11

 4. Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide 

72. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that the European Union had presented a draft 

decision on quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide at the thirty-first meeting of the 

Open-ended Working Group. Following discussion at that meeting the European Union had engaged 

in informal consultations and produced a revised draft decision, which was available to the parties as a 

conference room paper. Introducing the revised draft, the representative of the European Union said 

that it emphasized the crucial role of the International Plant Protection Convention in determining 

phytosanitary requirements in international trade and called for improved reporting and access to 

information on alternatives to methyl bromide. 

73. Several representatives voiced general support for the draft decision, saying that it should be 

discussed in a contact group. Many said that there was a need for accurate data to provide a basis for 

controlling quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide, suggesting that a good overview of 

quantities and uses would help to prevent proscribed uses. 

74. Some representatives affirmed that measures should be taken, whenever possible, to avoid 

methyl bromide use both before shipment and on arrival, with some noting that they were often 

required to use methyl bromide by countries to whom they exported goods. 

75. Several representatives also welcomed proposed measures for identifying alternatives to 

methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes One representative pointed out that the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s report for 2010 had indicated that over 30 per cent of 

the methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes could be rapidly replaced by 

alternatives. Another representative, however, said that the available alternatives were not very mature 

and that shifting to alternatives was a challenge for developing countries. 

76. A few representatives said that any discussion of the draft decision should be deferred, stating 

that they were not yet in a position to provide detailed data on methyl bromide used for quarantine and 

pre-shipment purposes. Some suggested that reporting should be on a voluntary basis. One 

representative said that methyl bromide used for such purposes was already reported under Article 7 of 

the Montreal Protocol. 

77. The parties agreed to establish a contact group, to be chaired by Ms. Alice Gausted (Norway), 

to discuss the matter and to consider the draft decision further. 

78. Following the work of the contact group the parties approved a draft decision on the matter for 

consideration and adoption during the high-level segment. 

 5. Global laboratory and analytical-use exemption 

79. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that at the Open-ended Working Group’s 

thirty-first meeting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had reported on alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances available for laboratory and analytical uses. Following the deliberations at 

that meeting, China had put forward a draft decision (draft decision G in document 

UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/3-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/3) that would allow parties operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 of the Protocol to deviate from existing laboratory and analytical use bans in individual cases 

until 31 December 2014. Subsequently, several parties, supported by members of the Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee, had engaged in discussions on the substance of that draft decision. 

80. Reporting on the status of those discussions, the representative of China said that the 

deliberations had been very fruitful and had culminated, at the current meeting, in an agreement 

between several parties on a revised draft decision. He expressed gratitude to those parties for their 

constructive approach and invited other interested countries to engage in further discussions. 

81. Subsequently, the representative of China introduced a conference room paper containing a 

revised version of the draft decision. The parties approved the draft decision for further consideration 

and adoption during the high-level segment. 

 6. Sustained mitigation of ozone-depleting-substance emissions from feedstock and 

process-agent uses 

82. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that the European Union had put forward a 

draft decision on sustained mitigation of ozone-depleting-substance emissions from feedstock and 

process-agent uses at the Open-ended Working Group’s thirty-first meeting. After discussing the draft 

decision in a contact group, the Working Group had forwarded the draft decision for further 

consideration at the current meeting. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

12

83. The representative of the European Union noted that there had been extensive intersessional 

consultations on the matter. On the basis of those discussions, the European Union had prepared two 

separate draft decisions, presented in conference room papers for consideration at the current meeting, 

one addressing process-agent uses and another on feedstock uses. 

84. Several representatives expressed support for further discussions in a contact group, in 

particular to address the unexplained discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates of 

carbon tetrachloride emissions. Several mentioned that new information had emerged during the 

inter-sessional consultations. One representative objected strongly to the discussion of feedstock uses 

in a contact group, arguing that such uses were not covered by the Montreal Protocol. 

85. The parties agreed to establish a contact group, to be chaired by Mr. Blaise Horisberger 

(Switzerland). The contact group was mandated to consider process-agent uses first and then, if 

sufficient time remained, to consider feedstock uses, with particular emphasis on carbon tetrachloride 

emissions. 

86. Following the work of the contact group the parties approved draft decisions on process-agent 

uses and on the discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates of carbon tetrachloride 

emissions for consideration and adoption during the high-level segment. 

 C. Environmentally sound disposal of ozone-depleting substances 

87. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel had made a presentation at the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working 

Group reviewing the Panel’s work on destruction of ozone-depleting substances, pursuant to decision 

XXII/10. 

88. The representative of Canada introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision 

on adoption of new destruction technologies for ozone-depleting substances. It was timely and 

appropriate, he said, to take into account the recommendations of the task force established by the 

Panel in response to decision XXII/10 to update the list of destruction processes approved by the 

parties. 

89. Subsequently, the representative of Canada presented a revised version of the draft decision, 

which the parties approved for further consideration during the high-level segment. In approving the 

draft decision the parties requested the Secretariat, prior to presenting the draft decision for adoption 

during the high-level segment, to complete the table in the annex to the draft decision by inserting the 

words “not determined” in the blank spaces in the table to indicate that the suitability of the related 

technologies had not been determined or approved for the substances in various annexes and groups of 

the Protocol. 

 D. Updating the nomination processes and recusal guidelines for the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel 

90. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that by decision XXII/22 the parties had 

requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to consider a number of issues related to 

the Panel’s operation and that, in response to the Panel’s report to the Open-ended Working Group at 

its thirty-first meeting, the representatives of Australia and the United States of America had 

introduced a draft decision (draft decision D in document UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/3-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/3) 

that had been discussed by the contact group set up by the Working Group. Intersessional discussions 

had addressed organizational aspects of the Panel but a number of issues still needed to be resolved. 

91. The parties agreed to establish a contact group to continue deliberating on the matter, 

co-chaired by Mr. Javier Camargo (Colombia) and Ms. Masami Fujimoto (Japan). 

92. Following the work of the contact group the parties approved a draft decision on the matter 

for consideration and adoption during the high-level segment. 

 E. Treatment of ozone-depleting substances used to service ships 

93. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that a draft decision on the issue had been put 

forward by Saint Lucia at the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and that a contact 

group had been established to consider the matter further. The resulting draft decision (draft decision 

K in document UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/3-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/3) was before the parties for their 

consideration, and document UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/INF/3 contained additional information on 

ozone-depleting substances used to service ships that might assist the parties in coming to a conclusion 

on the issue. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

13

94. The parties agreed to establish a contact group, co-chaired by Ms. Marissa Gowrie (Trinidad 

and Tobago) and Mr. Cornelius Rhein (European Union), to consider the issue further. 

95. Following the work of the contact group the parties approved a draft decision on the matter 

for consideration and adoption during the high-level segment. 

 F. Additional information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances 

96. Introducing the sub-item the Co-Chair recalled that it had been considered by a contact group 

at the thirty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. The draft decision developed by that 

contact group (draft decision J in document UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/3-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/3) was before 

the parties for their consideration. 

97. The parties agreed to establish a contact group to consider the issue further. The Group was 

initially chaired by Mr. Leslie Smith (Grenada) and Mr. Mikkel Sorensen (Denmark); upon his 

departure, Mr. Sorensen was replaced by Ms. Jana Borská (Czech Republic). 

98. Following the work of the contact group the parties approved a draft decision on the matter 

for consideration and adoption during the high-level segment. 

 G. Use of methyl bromide in Africa 

99. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that at the thirty-first meeting of the 

Open-ended Working Group a number of parties had put forth a proposal that the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel should review methyl bromide consumption trends in Africa and make 

recommendations on possible phase-out activities. While a draft decision on key challenges facing 

methyl bromide phase-out in Africa (draft decision A in document UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/3-

UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/3) was before the parties for consideration, the co-chair noted that a revised version 

of the proposal would be forthcoming. 

100. Subsequently, the representative of Kenya introduced a revised version of the draft decision. 

He said that many parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and particularly 

many of those in the African region, had made great strides in phasing out methyl bromide use in a 

number of applications and that parties were in compliance with the control measures for the substance 

under the Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, while cost-effective alternatives to methyl bromide were 

available for several applications, significant difficulties were being encountered in some areas that 

threatened the sustainability of alternatives to methyl bromide and risked placing many parties in 

non-compliance. Those issues included increased pest resistance to alternative chemicals, 

non-availability of alternatives in the market, technical difficulties in converting to new formulations, 

increasing restrictions as even alternatives became subject to control measures outside the scope of the 

Protocol (European Union regulations, for example) and the high capital investment and running costs 

associated with some alternatives. The situation required urgent attention in view of the 2015 target for 

the phase-out of methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol. 

101. Another representative said that assistance was required by parties in Africa to overcome the 

technical and procedural difficulties in applying alternatives at the national level and in preparing 

possible nominations for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide. 

102. Following their discussions in plenary session and informal consultations among interested 

parties the parties approved a draft decision on the matter for consideration and adoption during the 

high-level segment. 

 H. Proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol 

 1. Proposed amendment by Canada, Mexico and the United States of America 

 2. Proposed amendment by the Federated States of Micronesia 

103. The parties agreed to consider sub-items 4 (h) (i) and 4 (h) (ii) together. 

104. The representative of the Federated States of Micronesia introduced a proposed amendment to 

the Montreal Protocol, relating to control of HFCs (UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/5). He told a traditional tale to 

illustrate the need for the parties to the Montreal Protocol to take action to protect the global 

community from further environmental degradation resulting from HFC production. He said that the 

people of the Federated States of Micronesia, a small island developing State, were not alone in facing 

immediate catastrophe due to global warming. Populations in many African States faced the same 

threat and globally there was a common interest in addressing climate change through all means 

possible. Despite the concerted efforts of the parties to the Montreal Protocol and the acclaim for their 

achievements, the ozone hole in the southern hemisphere had not shrunk in recent years and earlier in 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

14

2011 a large ozone hole had been discovered for the first time over the Arctic region. Saying that there 

was a significant difference between the cost of phase-out between Montreal Protocol processes and 

those of the Kyoto Protocol, he concluded by saying that instead of expressing regret for past losses it 

was important to find strength in what remained as a basis for planning the future. 

105. The representatives of Canada, Mexico and the United States of America jointly presented 

their proposed amendment to the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/6) and drew attention to 

document UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/INF/5, prepared by the three parties, which addressed frequently asked 

questions relating to the proposed amendment. 

106. Introducing the proposed amendment, the representative of the United States of America 

highlighted a recent UNEP report describing clear links between ozone-related issues and climate 

change. Noting that HFCs were being introduced almost exclusively as an alternative to 

ozone-depleting substances, he said that the parties must immediately address an environmental harm 

resulting directly from the implementation of the Protocol and that preventing harm would be more 

cost-effective than repairing the damage after it had materialized. 

107. He said that parties had a responsibility under the Vienna Convention to manage the phase-out 

of ozone-depleting substances in a manner that minimized adverse effects on the environment and that 

the current forum was perfectly placed to discuss HFCs produced and consumed as alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances. In outlining the substance of the proposed amendment, he said that it was 

important to send a clear signal to industry to develop and commercialize substances with low 

global-warming potential in both developed and developing countries. Substantial benefits might 

accrue from adopting the amendment, including a cumulative 98 gigatonne reduction in the production 

of HFCs by 2050. The proposed amendment did not alter or affect obligations under the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change but rather promoted harmonization and coherence 

of policies among multilateral environmental agreements. He also explained that since HFCs were the 

primary alternative to CFCs and HCFCs, which were subject to phase-out under the Montreal 

Protocol, the parties might agree, in accordance with paragraph 2 (b) of Article 2 of the Vienna 

Convention, to harmonize their policies in moving to other alternatives under the Montreal Protocol. 

Concluding, he noted that opposition to the proposed amendment had already been voiced on 

technical, economic and legal grounds. He said, however, that the way forward involved dialogue to 

find common ground, and he requested that a formal contact group should be established. 

108. The representative of Canada added that the proposed amendment was timely, relevant and in 

line with the purpose of the Montreal Protocol and said that actions undertaken under the proposed 

amendment would complement the Kyoto Protocol. He said that there was a need to send an early 

signal to industry so that the market could adapt well in advance of regulatory change both by 

reducing production of HFCs and developing alternatives. He recalled that the parties to the Montreal 

Protocol had a long history of considering the impact of their actions and decisions on climate change, 

citing several decisions taken under the Protocol to that effect, specifically decisions X/16, XIV/10, 

XIX/6 and XX/8, along with decision 60/44 of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund. 

109. The representative of Mexico said that it was important for parties to the Montreal Protocol to 

make decisions based on scientific evidence and emphasized that his country had considered the 

evidence in deciding to support the proposed amendment and was acting on that basis alone. The 

financial mechanism under the Montreal Protocol had shown unparalleled success in reducing 

production and consumption of harmful gases and it would be appropriate to extend that process to 

HFCs. He affirmed that there was a moral and ethical basis for taking action based on clear scientific 

data and urged that parties should engage in cooperative dialogue about the proposed amendment. 

110. The parties discussed at length whether the proposed amendments should be discussed in a 

formal contact group. Some representatives expressed support for doing so but other representatives 

maintained strong opposition to any formal consideration of the issue under the Montreal Protocol 

111. There was agreement that in phasing out ozone-depleting substances it was preferable to adopt 

alternatives with low or zero global-warming potential rather than high global-warming potential. 

There was disagreement, however, on whether HFCs could be considered under the Montreal 

Protocol. Some representatives said that, because HFCs were not associated with ozone depletion, 

there was no legal basis for further discussion of the proposed amendments. Other representatives 

expressed support for further discussion of the amendments, noting that the Montreal Protocol and the 

Vienna Convention stipulated that protection of the ozone layer must be conducted with minimal 

effects on the environment and that the current rapid growth in HFC production was a direct result of 

actions undertaken under the Montreal Protocol. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

15

112. Many representatives from parties vulnerable to the effects of climate change, particularly 

small island developing States and States in Africa, emphasized that the risks posed by and harm 

caused by climate change were already occurring and increasing, with disastrous effects for their 

populations. Several representatives said that it was contradictory to argue that actions taken under the 

Montreal Protocol might exacerbate climate change but that parties were barred from recognizing and 

responding to the consequences of those actions under the Montreal Protocol and must instead seek 

relief under a different international agreement having largely the same parties. 

113. Some representatives said that both proposed amendments respected the principle of common 

but differentiated responsibilities, as they provided different timescales for phasing down HFCs for 

parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so operating. One representative added 

that the Montreal Protocol had been one of the first multilateral environmental agreements to 

implement the principle, in particular in creating the Multilateral Fund and adopting worldwide 

implementation of ozone-depleting substance phase-out schedules. Another representative, however, 

said that the including HFCs in the Montreal Protocol would impose new obligations on all parties to 

the ozone regime that would not be consistent with the Kyoto Protocol, which only imposed the 

obligation of reducing HFCs on developed countries. In accordance with the principles of equity and 

common but differentiated responsibilities, developing countries, in contrast to developed countries, 

should deal with HFCs through voluntary, nationally appropriate actions supported by international 

financial, technological and capacity-building support. He urged parties to retain their focus on 

approaches that would be agreeable to all parties, instead of diverting efforts to questionable 

approaches such as the proposed amendments.. Proponents of the amendments suggested that such 

concerns could be resolved through dialogue in a formal contact group. 

114. Some representatives said that the Montreal Protocol provided the infrastructure for addressing 

the production and consumption of HFCs, particularly through the Multilateral Fund, the OzonAction 

information clearing-house and other technical assistance mechanisms. Those representatives argued 

that the Montreal Protocol therefore provided a proper and effective framework for considerations of 

HFCs. Other representatives, however, said that the acknowledged success of the Montreal Protocol 

was grounded in its clear focus on ozone depletion. That success might be put at risk if its focus were 

diluted by encompassing other environmental issues. They said that the Framework Convention on 

Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol were the appropriate multilateral environmental agreements 

for considering greenhouse gases such as HFCs. Some representatives further suggested that the 

Multilateral Fund could provide incentives for countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to 

use alternatives with low global-warming potential but that the Montreal Protocol could go no further 

in addressing HFCs in the absence of a request from the Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

115. In response, representatives supporting establishment of a formal contact group to discuss the 

issues further noted that the priorities of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto 

Protocol were much broader in their overall scope, that negotiations under those agreements were 

much more complex, and that robust efforts to introduce consideration of HFCs in that context had so 

far failed. Moreover, those agreements addressed emissions but not consumption and production of 

greenhouse gases, including HFCs. They argued that the Montreal Protocol was therefore better 

positioned to examine consumption and production of HFCs, which had been promoted under its 

aegis. One representative also said that he supported a formal contact group but if one could not be 

created would also support informal negotiations to help advance the discussion of the amendments. 

116. One representative said that it was not premature to consider HFCs or even timely to do so. 

Rather, parties were already too late in taking up the issue and time spent debating whether to have a 

fuller dialogue would be better used in a constructive discussion of controlling the effects of HFCs. 

Another representative said that there had been very successful collaboration between the Basel 

Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 

the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals 

and Pesticides in International Trade and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 

He suggested that a joint committee of the Montreal Protocol, the Framework Convention on Climate 

Change and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution should be convened to 

identify how a synergies process might be applied to controlling HFCs under the ozone, climate 

change and air pollution regimes. Furthermore, the parties to the Vienna Convention should invite the 

parties to the other two conventions to consider implementing enhanced measures to study, monitor 

and report on HFCs. 

117. Two representatives of non-governmental organizations expressed support for establishing a 

formal contact group. One noted that States arguing for consideration of the issues under the auspices 

of other multilateral environmental agreements were also blocking their consideration under those 

agreements. Another observed that the secretariats of those agreements had said that the earliest date 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

16

that HFCs could be considered under them would be 2016 and that no provisions would enter into 

force until 2020, by which time HFC production might have tripled. Accordingly, the Montreal 

Protocol provided a more responsive structure for discussion and action to reduce the harmful effects 

of HFCs. In addition, progress should not be held back by States seeking to protect domestic industry 

through inaction at an international forum. 

118. On the other hand, the representative of an industry group from a developing country said that 

it would be too much of a challenge for industry in his country to reduce HFCs, and he suggested that 

additional alternatives were required before the issue could be discussed further. 

119. In summarizing the discussion, the Chair noted that proper procedure had been followed by the 

parties proposing the amendments to the Protocol but that the parties had nevertheless failed to reach 

consensus on establishing a formal contact group to consider the proposed amendments. Indicating 

that it was necessary to move on to other items on the agenda, she therefore declared that the parties 

would not discuss the proposed amendments further at the current meeting either in plenary session or 

in a contact group. She noted, however, that the important issue of alternatives to HFCs could be 

discussed in the contact group discussing alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. 

 I. Potential areas of focus for the assessment panels’ 2014 quadrennial reports 

120. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that at its thirty-first meeting the Open-ended 

Working Group had requested the Secretariat to prepare a document consolidating the suggestions of 

the assessment panels on possible guidance that the parties might wish to give the panels regarding the 

preparation of their 2014 quadrennial assessment. Initial ideas on the matter were contained in 

document UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/10. 

121. Some representatives expressed an interest in elaborating on those ideas at the current meeting. 

The representative of the European Union subsequently introduced a conference room paper 

containing a draft decision on potential focus areas for the 2014 quadrennial reports of the Scientific 

Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel. He summarized the main focal areas proposed for the reports, which, under the 

proposed schedule, would all be finalized by 31 December 2014. Several representatives expressed an 

interest in discussing the matter further. 

122. Following deliberations among interested parties, the representative of the European Union 

presented a revised version of the draft decision. The parties approved the revised draft decision with 

small modifications for further consideration and adoption during the high-level segment. 

 J. Phase-out of HFC-23 by-product emissions 

123. The representative of the United States of America introduced a draft decision on phase-out of 

HFC-23 by-product emissions (draft decision C in document UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/3-

UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/3). She said that the draft decision was intended to deal with HFC-23 emitted as a 

by-product of the production of HCFC-22. 

124. One representative, supported by others, said that HFC-23 was not an ozone-depleting 

substance, that it came under the purview of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change and that it was therefore not appropriate for consideration by the 

Meeting of the Parties. Some representatives said that the matter fell within the discussions that had 

already taken place on amendments to the Montreal Protocol and had therefore been disposed of and 

should not be discussed further, while others said that it was a distinct matter properly on the agenda. 

Furthermore, they noted that it had not been included in the earlier discussion on the HFC 

amendments and said that, as a result, it had to be considered separately. Finally, they said that the 

issue was directly related to HCFC-22 production, a matter directly within the purview of the Montreal 

Protocol. 

125. The Co-Chair ruled that, as the parties were unlikely to achieve consensus on it, the draft 

decision would not be considered further at the current meeting. 

 K. Status of Nepal relative to the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal 

Protocol 

126. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair said that the Government of Nepal had submitted a request 

to have the issue of its compliance with the Copenhagen Amendment reviewed by the parties in the 

light of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol, which allowed a State to avoid the 

application of trade sanctions under the Protocol and its amendments if it could demonstrate that it was 

in full compliance with their provisions. The matter had been discussed at the thirty-first meeting of 

the Open-ended Working Group; at the recent sixty-fifth meeting of the Executive Committee of the 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

17

Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, at which the Committee had 

decided not to fund Nepal’s HCFC phase-out management pending specific actions by that Party; and 

at the recent forty-seventh meeting of the Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance 

Procedure for the Montreal Protocol. 

127. The representative of Nepal said that the control of ozone-depleting substances was a high 

priority for the country and that all requirements of the Copenhagen Amendment with regard to 

control of HCFCs had been addressed by national regulations, through which annual consumption of 

HCFCs had been capped at 23 tonnes since 2001. Nepal had fulfilled all its obligations under the 

Protocol and had satisfied all reporting requirements. Consideration of Nepal as a party in full 

compliance with the HCFC control provisions pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 9 of Article 4 of the 

Protocol would help the country to move forward in implementing its HCFC phase-out management 

plan. 

128. In the ensuing discussion, several representatives commended Nepal for the efforts it had made 

to control ozone-depleting substances and to move towards ratifying the Copenhagen Amendment. 

Mr. Ghazi Al Odat (Jordan), Vice-President, Rapporteur and previous President of the Implementation 

Committee, who had presided over the Committee’s forty-seventh meeting in the absence of the 

current president, Ms. Elizabeth Munzert (Germany), said that in a recommendation agreed at its 

forty-seventh meeting, the Committee had advised Nepal to take note of decision XX/9. That decision 

clarified that the term “State not party to this Protocol” in Article 4, paragraph 9, did not apply to 

parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol until 1 January 2013, effectively 

deferring the application of trade sanctions to Nepal, as such a party, until that date. 

129. The parties took note of the current status of Nepal with regard to the Copenhagen 

Amendment, taking into account the recent decision of the Executive Committee and the 

recommendation of the Implementation Committee. 

 L. Consideration of membership of Montreal Protocol bodies for 2012 

130. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair requested the regional groups to submit nominations to the 

Secretariat for several positions in Montreal Protocol bodies for 2012. 

131. The parties subsequently agreed on the membership of the Implementation Committee and the 

Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol and on 

co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group. They also endorsed a new co-chair for the Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee and a senior expert of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. 

132. The parties approved draft decisions reflecting that agreement for further consideration and 

adoption during the high-level segment. 

 M. Compliance and reporting issues considered by the Implementation 

Committee 

133. In the absence of Ms. Munzert Mr. Odat reported on the work of the Committee’s forty-sixth 

and forty-seventh meetings, which had taken place on 7 and 8 August 2011 and 18 and 19 November 

2011 respectively. The full report of the forty sixth meeting was available, while that of the forty 

seventh meeting would be made available on the Ozone Secretariat’s website. 

134. He said that the Committee was pleased with the excellent progress by parties in meeting their 

data reporting and phase-out obligations under the Protocol. The draft decisions of the Committee 

were contained in a conference room paper summarizing the Committee’s work at its forty-seventh 

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 Executive Committee, and the Ozone 

Secretariat. 

135. He then outlined the ten draft decisions approved by the Committee for consideration by the 

Meeting of the Parties. The first, on data reporting, listed seven parties that had yet to report 

ozone-depleting substance consumption and production data for 2010 in accordance with Article 7 of 

the Protocol. Those seven parties were Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Libya, Liechtenstein, Nauru, 

New Zealand, Peru and Yemen. Those seven parties were the only ones that had not yet reported their 

data and the rate of reporting was therefore high, with 189 parties having submitted their 2010 data. 

He also said that 92 parties had reported data for 2010 by 30 June 2010 in accordance with decision 

XV/15 and that such early submission of data was exceptionally helpful to the Committee’s work. It 

was extremely encouraging that except for the seven parties all parties had complied with their data 

reporting obligations under the Protocol for all years from 1991 to 2010. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

18

136. Turning to the reported data he observed that all parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 

5 that had reported data had already succeeded in phasing out the controlled uses of CFCs (except for 

those with approved exemptions for essential uses), halons and carbon tetrachloride and had therefore 

complied with the phase-out deadline of 1 January 2010. That, he said, meant that there was a high 

degree of confidence that the phase-out targets for methyl chloroform, methyl bromide and HCFCs 

would be successfully attained during the next two decades. 

137. Three of the draft decisions pertained to the compliance status of particular parties: the draft 

decision on Libya recorded that party’s non-compliance with its phase-out obligations for halons; the 

draft decision on Iraq addressed that party’s compliance in the light of its security situation and 

political and economic difficulties; and the draft decision on Yemen concerned the fact that Yemen 

had not yet reported its HCFC data for the year 2009. 

138. Two other draft decisions, on the European Union and the Russian Federation, recorded the 

fact that those parties had fallen into non-compliance because they were engaged in trade of HCFCs 

with Kazakhstan, a non-party to the Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments to the Protocol at the time 

that the trade had taken place. Kazakhstan had become a party to the Copenhagen Amendment on 

26 June 2011 but was not yet a party to the Beijing Amendment. 

139. A further two draft decisions dealt with requests for the revision of HCFC baseline data, while 

another dealt with the number of decimal places used by the Secretariat when presenting and analysing 

HCFC data for compliance. 

140. The last draft decision addressed parties that had established systems for licensing the import 

and export of ozone-depleting substances. Of the 185 parties that had ratified the Montreal 

Amendment, only three had yet to establish such systems, while a further ten that had not ratified the 

Amendment had nevertheless established them. According to the reported data, 174 parties and eight 

non-parties had reported on their licensing systems, and the draft decision encouraged both parties and 

non-parties to act on that issue as necessary. 

141. In conclusion, he thanked his fellow Committee members on the President’s behalf for their 

hard work, support and dedication in helping him to carry out his duties. 

142. In the ensuing discussion one representative said that he was concerned by the suggestion that 

the Secretariat should use two decimal places when analysing and presenting data. He recalled that 

data was reported in ODP-tonnes by the Secretariat and not the metric tonnes used by the parties and 

said that even in cases of little consumption of ozone-depleting substances the use of two decimal 

places could place parties in non-compliance. 

143. Following Mr. Odat’s presentation and the ensuing discussion the parties approved the draft 

decisions submitted by the Committee for further consideration and adoption during the high-level 

segment. 

 V. Vienna Convention issues 

 A. Report of the eighth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers of the Parties 

to the Vienna Convention 

 B. Status of the General Trust Fund for Financing Activities on Research and 

Systematic Observations Relevant to the Vienna Convention 

144. The parties considered items 5 (a) and (b) together. 

145. Mr. Michael Kurylo (United States of America), chair of the eighth meeting of the Ozone 

Research Managers of the Parties to the Vienna Convention, gave a presentation on the work of the 

eighth meeting, held in Geneva from 2 to 4 May 2011. A summary of his presentation, as submitted by 

Mr. Kurylo without formal editing, is set out in annex VIII to the present report. 

146. The representative of the Secretariat then gave a presentation outlining the history of the 

General Trust Fund for Financing Activities on Research and Systematic Observations Relevant to the 

Vienna Convention, including its inception in 2003, its extension to 2015 and the institutional 

arrangements agreed between the Secretariat and the World Meteorological Organization in respect of 

its operation. She also detailed the administrative activities of the Secretariat under the Trust Fund, 

including the annual dispatch of invitations for contributions, and provided information on 

contributions and expenditures. As of 13 July 2011, $259,054 had been received in the Trust Fund 

from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and the 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

19

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She also said that in kind contributions had 

also been received in conjunction with activities undertaken under the Trust Fund. 

147. She said that four activities had taken place: a Dobson inter-calibration exercise in Egypt, in 

March 2004; a Brewer calibration in Nepal and Indonesia, in September 2006; an inter-calibration 

exercise in South Africa for all African Dobson instruments, in October 2009; and a Dobson data 

quality workshop in the Czech Republic, in February 2011. Planned activities included a Brewer 

calibration and associated training for several stations worldwide during 2012 and 2013 and an 

inter-comparison exercise involving all African Dobson instruments in October 2013. Currently 

$103,454 remained in the Trust Fund and the limited resources available had prevented consideration 

of the national proposals submitted by six countries. 

148. Responding to a question, Mr. Kurylo said that in many cases green-house gases and 

ozone-depleting substance were being measured together. Asking the Ozone Research Managers to 

measure greenhouse gases therefore did not duplicate work under the Framework Convention on 

Climate Change as an understanding of how all atmospheric gases functioned was necessary to an 

understanding of how the atmosphere functioned. As an example, he said that while sulfur 

hexafluoride was a greenhouse gas monitoring it could reveal a great deal about atmospheric 

circulation, which was also of value in understanding the behaviour of ozone-depleting substances. 

149. Mr. W.L. Sumathipala (Sri Lanka), on behalf of the President of the Bureau of the eighth 

meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention, Mr. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, 

subsequently submitted two draft decisions on behalf of the Bureaux of the eighth meeting and of the 

Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. One concerned the recommendations 

of the Ozone Research Managers and the other related to the Trust Fund. 

150. Several members requested more information on monitoring activities taking place in both the 

southern and northern hemispheres. Some expressed concern at the monitoring of green-house gases, 

which were said to be within the mandate of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change. Several members asked for more time to consider both draft decisions and it was suggested 

that it might be possible to merge the texts into a single draft decision. 

151. The Co-Chair asked interested parties to engage in informal consultations with the 

representative of Sri Lanka to revise the text to produce a single draft decision. 

152. Following those consultations the parties approved a draft decision on the matter for 

consideration and adoption during the high-level segment. 

 VI. Other matters 

 A. Mobilizing financing from sources other than the Multilateral Fund 

153. The representative of Burkina Faso introduced a draft recommendation on mobilizing 

financing from sources other than the Multilateral Fund for the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs in 

Africa. 

154. Several members requested more time to review the draft decision. The Co-Chair requested 

interested parties to engage in informal consultations with the representative of Burkina Faso to revise 

the draft recommendation. Subsequently, the representative of Burkina Faso said that, following 

discussion at a meeting of the African group, the draft decision would be withdrawn to allow further 

discussion of the matter at the regional level. 

 B. Bali declaration on achieving the transition to low-GWP alternatives to HFCs 

155. As had been indicated during the opening of the current meeting the representative of 

Indonesia introduced a declaration on achieving the transition to low-GWP alternatives to HFCs. He 

then read the declaration, which is set out in annex IX to the present report as submitted and without 

formal editing, and invited other parties to sign it. 

156. One representative recalled that at the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties in Bangkok, 

91 countries had signed a declaration on the global transition away from HCFCs and HFCs. Since that 

meeting the total number of signatories had risen to 108, with the addition of Belarus, Côte d’Ivoire, 

Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Malawi, Maldives, Morocco, Seychelles, 

Solomon Islands, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Yemen and 

Zambia. She added that the current meeting marked the closure of the Bangkok declaration to 

additional signatories and suggested that parties wishing to add their names to it should sign the Bali 

declaration instead. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

20

157. The representative of Indonesia thanked all representatives for their support for the Bali 

Declaration and announced that the Declaration was open for signature and would remain so until the 

Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties. 

 Part two: High-level segment 

 I. Opening of the high-level segment 

158. The high-level segment of the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties was opened at 5.20 p.m. 

on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, with an opening ceremony facilitated by a master of ceremonies. 

159. Opening statements were delivered by Mr. Anak Agung Alit Sastrawan, representing the 

Governor of Bali; Mr. Marco González, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat; Mr. Balthasar 

Kambuaya, State Minister for the Environment, Indonesia; Mr. Priyadharshana Yapa; and Ms. 

Deborah Owens (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), President of the 

Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.1

160. Mr. Sastrawan officially welcomed the representatives on behalf of the Governor of Bali, 

expressing his hope that the island’s beauty would inspire solutions to the environmental challenges 

under discussion. He noted that population growth and tourism were putting pressure on Bali’s natural 

environment; pollution and emission of ozone-depleting substances were high and rising, in part due 

to lack of awareness. He outlined the strategy adopted at all levels of the Government and the private 

sector to address these environmental issues over the long term, which was viewed as crucial for 

preserving the island’s way of life. He concluded by expressing the hope that the representatives 

present would arrive at effective recommendations for controlling ozone-depleting substances. 

161. Mr. González thanked the people and Government of Bali, who, he said, were living the ideal 

of sustainable development, a concept that had gained global prominence in the past 30 years. He 

suggested that as the Protocol approached its twenty-fifth year it should be viewed through the lens of 

sustainable development. Doing so revealed that key principles now recognized as cornerstones of 

sustainable development had been implemented consistently under the Protocol. They included the 

precautionary principle, according to which the international community had taken action in advance 

of hard evidence of ozone layer destruction; the principle of common but differentiated 

responsibilities, whereby developed countries provided both financial and technical support to enable 

developing countries to participate fully; and the “start and strengthen” approach that began with small 

steps and later strengthened the Protocol through amendments based on scientific, technological and 

economic assessments. He described the benefits of Protocol implementation, which included the 

carbon emissions avoided by phasing out ozone-depleting substances, the modernization of entire 

sectors and the achievement of substantial health benefits. Finally, he cautioned that challenges 

remained, particularly HCFC phase-out over the next four years, and he urged representatives to 

approach replenishment in a spirit of understanding and compromise. 

162. Mr. Kambuaya welcomed the representatives to Bali and expressed his Government’s 

commitment to eliminating ozone-depleting substances and addressing climate change in a synergistic 

manner. He identified certain key priorities for a global solution, namely, that phasing out 

ozone-depleting substances required technical and financial assistance; that an innovative strategy 

must address both the ozone layer and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; and that 

global political will and international action were necessary to implement the Montreal Protocol 

effectively. In closing, he called on representatives to adopt a Bali Declaration addressing a transition 

to low-global-warming-potential alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, and he expressed his 

hopes for a successful outcome to the meeting. 

163. Mr. Priyadharshana Yapa welcomed the participants and said that since the last meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties several important implementation activities had taken place. The Ozone 

Research Managers, at their meeting in Geneva in May 2011, had reviewed national and international 

research and monitoring programmes and had made several recommendations on areas needing further 

research, support and resources to enable understanding of ozone recovery and the interrelationship 

between ozone and climate variability and human and biological vulnerability to increased ultraviolet 

radiation and other stress factors. The Bureau had held two meetings to review implementation of the 

decisions of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, during which it had agreed on the 

need for increased funding for research. He added that successful implementation of the Vienna 

Convention over the past twenty-six years had demonstrated the cooperative spirit of all parties in 

 

1 Ms. Owens replaced her fellow national Mr. Steven Reeves, who was elected President at the 

Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties but was unable to complete his term. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

21

addressing ozone depletion. Challenges persisted, however, some of which were closely linked to 

items on the agenda of the current meeting. Concluding, he said that it had been an honour for Sri 

Lanka to serve as President of the Bureau and he thanked his colleagues in the Bureau for their 

cooperation and support over the past three years. 

164. Ms. Owens welcomed the representatives and expressed her gratitude for the trust invested in 

her during her tenure. She reported that the Bureau had met twice in the past year and was satisfied 

with the implementation of the decisions of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties. Recalling that 

the Montreal Protocol’s success was based on cooperation among the parties, she expressed her hope 

for a continued focus on agreement by consensus, noting that there were many challenges on the 

agenda of the current meeting, particularly the proposal for replenishing the Multilateral Fund. Calling 

attention to the plan for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol to implement 

their first control measure on HCFC phase-out by freezing production and consumption in the near 

future, she expressed confidence that a firm agreement on replenishment would send a positive signal 

to those parties regarding their compliance obligations. She concluded by thanking her colleagues in 

the Bureau, the Ozone Secretariat and all parties for their preparations for the current meeting. 

165. Following those opening statements, the Executive Secretary presented the representatives of 

the Government of Indonesia with an award in recognition of the Government’s outstanding efforts 

and achievements in protecting the ozone layer. 

166. The representatives then enjoyed a cultural event, during which they learned to play the 

angklung, a traditional Indonesian musical instrument that each representative had received as a gift 

from the Government of Indonesia. 

 II. Organizational matters 

 A. Election of officers of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to 

the Vienna Convention 

167. At the opening session of the high-level segment of the combined meeting, 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 ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention: 

President: Mr. Mikheil Tushishvili Georgia (Eastern European States) 

Vice-Presidents: Mr. Alain Wilmart Belgium (Western Europe and other 

States) 

 Ms. Marissa Gowrie Trinidad and Tobago (Latin American 

and Caribbean States) 

 Mr. Ezzat Lewis Hannalla Agaiby Egypt (African States) 

Rapporteur: Mr. Arief Yuwono Indonesia (Asian and Pacific States) 

 B. Election of officers of the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol 

168. At the opening session of the high-level segment of the combined meeting, 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-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol: 

President: Mr. Sianga Abilio Angola (African States) 

Vice-Presidents: Ms. Azra Rogovic-Grubic Bosnia and Herzegovina (Eastern 

European States) 

 Mr. Javier Ernesto Camargo Colombia (Latin American and 

Caribbean States) 

 Mr. Arief Yuwono Indonesia (Asian and Pacific States) 

Rapporteur: Mr. Bernard Made Canada (Western Europe and other 

States) 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

22

 C. Adoption of the agenda of the high-level segment of the ninth meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third 

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

169. The following agenda for the high-level segment was adopted on the basis of the provisional 

agenda contained in document UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/1-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23.1: 

1. Opening of the high-level segment: 

(a) Statement by representative(s) of the Government of Indonesia; 

(b) Statement by representative(s) of the United Nations Environment Programme; 

(c) Statement by the President of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties to the Vienna Convention 

(d) Statement by the President of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol. 

2. Organizational matters: 

(a) Election of officers of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the 

Vienna Convention; 

(b) Election of officers of the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol; 

(c) Adoption of the agenda of the high-level segment of the ninth meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third 

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol; 

(d) Organization of work; 

(e) Credentials of representatives. 

3. Presentations by the assessment panels on their 2010 quadrennial assessment. 

4. Presentation by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund on the 

work of the Executive Committee. 

5. Statements by heads of delegations. 

6. Report of the co-chairs of the preparatory segment and consideration of the decisions 

recommended for adoption at the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the 

Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

7. Dates and venues for the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna 

Convention and the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 

8. Other matters. 

9. Adoption of decisions by the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention at its 

ninth meeting. 

10. Adoption of decisions by the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

11. Adoption of the report of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the 

Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

12. Closure of the meeting. 

 D. Organization of work 

170. The parties agreed to follow their customary procedures. 

 E. Credentials of representatives 

171. The Bureaux of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention 

and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol approved the credentials of the 

representatives of 86 of the 127 parties represented. The Bureaux provisionally approved the 

participation of other parties on the understanding that they would forward their credentials to the 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

23

Secretariat as soon as possible. The Bureaux 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 Bureaux 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 integration organization, by the competent authority of that organization. The 

Bureaux further recalled that representatives of parties not presenting credentials in the correct form 

could be precluded from full participation in the meetings of the parties, including the right to vote. 

 III. Presentations by the assessment panels on their 2010 quadrennial 

assessment 

172. Members of the Montreal Protocol’s three assessment panels and their technical options 

committees made presentations on the panels’ 2010 quadrennial assessments. 

173. Mr. John Pyle and Mr. Paul Newman spoke about the scientific findings discussed in the 2011 

synthesis report and the scientific assessment of the Scientific Assessment Panel, including matters 

such as the total abundance of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere, prospects for further 

control of methyl bromide and the interaction between ozone-layer depletion and climate change, 

including the role of HFCs. 

174. Ms. Janet Bornman and Mr. Nigel Paul gave an overview of the key findings of the 2010 

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel report, and then summarized the effects of ultraviolet 

radiation and climate change interactions on human health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, 

biogeochemical cycles, air quality and construction materials. 

175. Mr. Ian Rae began the presentation by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, 

providing an overview of that panel's report and summaries from each of the technical options 

committees. He then continued with the report of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee and 

was followed by Mr. Miguel Quintero with the report of the Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical 

Options Committee, Mr. Sergey Kopylov with the report of the Halons Technical Options Committee, 

Ms. Marta Pizano with the report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, Mr. Lambert 

Kuijpers with the report of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options 

Committee, and Ms. Helen Tope with the report of the Medical Technical Options Committee. 

Ms. Tope concluded the presentations with a summary of the Panel’s portion of the synthesis report. 

176. Summaries of the presentations, as prepared by the presenters and without formal editing, are 

set out in annex X to the present report. 

177. The parties took note of the information presented. 

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

Multilateral Fund on the work of the Executive Committee 

178. Mr. Patrick Mclnerney (Australia), chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, 

delivered a presentation on the Committee’s activities since the Twenty-Second Meeting of the 

Parties, encompassing the Committee’s sixty-second, sixty-third, sixty-fourth and sixty-fifth meetings. 

He summarized the report contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/8 and said that between its 

sixty-second and the sixty-fifth meetings the Executive Committee had approved a total of 

349 additional projects and activities with a planned phase-out of production and consumption of 

1,465 ODP-tonnes of controlled substances. The funds approved for projects and activities totalled 

$274,468,323, including $30,232,360 for agency support costs. That included funding for 91 stage I 

HCFC phase-out management plans for 102 countries, including the management plan for China. 

Those approvals had been enabled by applying the HCFC cost guidelines agreed in decision 60/44 and 

resolving certain policy issues related to HCFC phase-out. 

179. The Executive Committee had considered activities and projects to phase out HCFCs pursuant 

to decision XIX/6. On a case-by-case basis, it had provided funding to phase out more than 10 per cent 

of countries’ estimated HCFC baselines and would continue to do so. It had also calculated the starting 

points for aggregate reductions in HCFC consumption for HCFC phase-out management plans and 

additional funding for HCFC conversion projects submitted outside of approved HCFC phase-out 

management plans. Such funding could be considered on an exceptional and case-by-case basis, 

especially when it was for enterprises exclusively reliant on imported HCFC-141b pre-blended polyol 

systems that had not been reported as consumption. The Multilateral Fund Secretariat would also 

prepare a paper on options for a tracking system to correlate, by country, the amounts of 

HCFC 141b-based pre-blended polyols exported by system houses with the amounts used by foam 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

24

enterprises, and which had been approved for phase-out, in importing parties operating under 

paragraph one of Article 5 of the Protocol. 

180. Funding would be made available for faster phase-out of HCFCs beyond 2020 for 

low-volume-consuming countries. It would be calculated from the funding agreed to meet the 35 per 

cent reduction in consumption established under the HCFC cost guidelines. The Executive Committee 

had agreed to consider, on a case-by-case basis, stage I of the HCFC phase-out management plans of 

former low-volume-consuming countries, with a consumption of over 360 metric tonnes in the 

refrigeration servicing sector only. Funding would also be provided on a case-by-case basis. The 

Committee had also established a window for ozone-depleting substance destruction technologies for 

low-volume-consuming countries pursuant to decision XXI/2, and ozone-depleting substance disposal 

demonstration projects had been approved for Ghana, Mexico, and Cuba. 

181. He said that funding for projects to phase out HCFC-22 in the manufacture of refrigeration and 

air-conditioning equipment would be considered if the project proposals included information on 

estimated future amounts of HCFC-22 that could be required for servicing such equipment until 2020 

and clearly demonstrated how the projects could reduce the growth of HCFC consumption for 

servicing that equipment. Work on the HCFC production sector was under way and an interim report 

on the technical audit of HCFC production plants in China had been presented to the members of the 

subgroup on the production sector. 

182. A number of other policy issues had also been considered, including funding for those 

countries whose consumption was between 361 and 400 metric tonnes in the servicing sector. The 

Executive Committee reiterated that funding for institutional strengthening as part of HCFC phase-out 

management plans was subject to the performance-based targets of the plans. The Executive 

Committee had also set a cost-effectiveness threshold for the rigid insulation refrigeration foam 

subsector and had discussed the incremental costs related to retooling for the manufacture of heat 

exchangers. 

183. Further progress had been made regarding the outstanding contributions of the Russian 

Federation, and senior representatives of the Russian Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Natural 

Resources and Environment had participated in an informal meeting on the margins of the current 

meeting. The Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund had been informed that the Ministry of Finance of 

the Russian Federation had taken steps to resolve the issue, and dialogue was continuing. 

184. In summary he said that at its meetings the Executive Committee had been mindful that 2011 

was the last year of the current Multilateral Fund funding triennium and that it needed to ensure that 

the goals set by the parties for the period 2009–2011 were successfully met. The work of the 

Executive Committee had placed the goals of the 2013 freeze and the 2015 ten per cent reduction in 

HCFC consumption firmly within the reach of the parties. 

185. He then spoke on behalf of the implementing agencies. The United Nations Development 

Programme (UNDP) was operating a programme with a total value of $616 million in over 

100 countries. During 2011, HCFC phase-out management plans and sector plans for 30 countries had 

been submitted to the Executive Committee, including China where UNDP was the lead agency. 

UNDP had also engaged with partner countries and technology providers to find the best available 

solutions to industrial conversion that also took into account global-warming potential and energy 

efficiency. UNDP was assessing relatively new technological developments that had not been used in 

developing countries and had reported on the progress achieved in pilot and validation projects in the 

foam, solvent and refrigeration sectors as well as on ozone-depleting substance waste destruction 

projects in Brazil, Colombia, Ghana and India. 

186. UNEP was currently working as lead agency in 51 countries and as cooperating agency in 

22 countries in preparing HCFC phase-out management plans. Under its Compliance Assistance 

Programme, UNEP had been providing support to Governments at risk of non-compliance and had 

supported the ratification of amendments to the Montreal Protocol through the regional networks, 

thematic meetings and country-to-country cooperation. Special attention had been given to newly 

appointed national ozone officers, and UNEP had used a variety of means such as partnerships and 

cooperation with private companies and refrigeration and air conditioning associations, information on 

existing technology options and opportunities for climate benefits. 

187. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) had provided assistance to 

78 countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol through 270 projects. 

Since the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties, the Executive Committee had approved funding for 

95 new projects to be implemented by UNIDO, phasing out a total of 807 ODP-tonnes of controlled 

substances in 59 different countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. A project on resource 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

25

mobilization for HCFC phase-out and climate co-benefits had also been approved for UNIDO at the 

sixty-second meeting of the Executive Committee and UNIDO had contributed to promoting new 

technologies that coupled climate benefits with zero ozone-depletion potential. 

188. The World Bank had expanded its Montreal Protocol portfolio to address HCFCs in three large 

countries in East Asia, and once completed in 2015 those projects would permanently eliminate 

approximately 15,500 metric tonnes of HCFC-141b consumption, equivalent to 12 million tonnes of 

carbon dioxide. The World Bank had also started to work with the Government of China to reduce its 

production levels to match the HCFC-141b consumption reductions that many other countries were 

undertaking in line with decision XIX/6. 

189. The parties took note of the information presented. 

 V. Statements by heads of delegations 

190. During the high-level segment statements were made by heads of delegation of the following 

parties, listed in the order in which they spoke: Sri Lanka, Maldives, Iran (Islamic Republic of), 

Indonesia, China, Japan, Switzerland, European Union and its member States, Lao People’s 

Democratic Republic, Cambodia, Paraguay, India, Guinea, Kenya, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, 

Iraq, Cote d’Ivoire, Palau, Malaysia, Seychelles, Nepal, Mozambique, Mongolia and Bangladesh. The 

representative of South Sudan, the world’s newest country, also made a statement, as did the 

representatives of an intergovernmental body and a non-governmental organization. 

191. Representatives of all parties who spoke thanked the Government and people of Indonesia for 

their hospitality in hosting the current meeting and remarked on the beauty of the island of Bali. Many 

thanked UNEP and the Ozone Secretariat, the Multilateral Fund secretariat and implementing 

agencies, donor countries, the assessment panels, international organizations and other stakeholders 

for their roles in ensuring the success of the meeting and the successful development and 

implementation of the Protocol, and they congratulated the members of the bureau on their election. 

192. Many representatives reiterated their commitment to the objectives of the Protocol, and some 

countries that had not yet ratified certain amendments affirmed their intention to do so. Many 

representatives described their countries’ efforts to meet their obligations under the Protocol. 

Achievements included the phase-out of the production and consumption of controlled substances, in a 

number of cases ahead of the deadlines established under the Protocol; the promotion of alternative 

substances and technologies, including climate-friendly technologies; training and capacity-building; 

awareness-raising; and the enhancement of cooperation among government ministries, public and 

private stakeholders, international organizations and the parties themselves. Several representatives 

referred to their attempts to ensure that phase-out was achieved in a sustainable manner. Some also 

noted the synergistic effects of their phase-out efforts, such as climate co-benefits and strengthened 

procedures and security measures related to other controlled substances. 

193. Representatives praised the Montreal Protocol, characterizing it as the most successful 

international mechanism for environmental protection and citing it as a model for multilateral 

environmental agreements and for cooperation between developed and developing countries. Many 

called on the expertise gained through implementation of the Protocol to be used to accelerate 

destruction of banks of ozone-depleting substances and development of alternatives to those 

substances, as well as to address new challenges such as climate change. 

194. In the context of the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund many representatives spoke about 

the financial challenges faced by the parties, in particular parties operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 of the Protocol. Representatives of such parties called on donors to provide adequate 

financial assistance to ensure that accelerated HCFC phase-out targets could be achieved. 

Representatives of donor countries noted the effects of the global economic crisis on their countries 

and the need to ensure that funds were used as efficiently as possible, while reaffirming their 

commitment to ensuring that the Protocol continued to function effectively and recognizing the need 

for financial assistance to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. 

195. A number of representatives were pleased to announce the approval of their country’s HCFC 

phase-out management plans. Many representatives from parties operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 spoke about the challenges their countries faced in implementing their phase-out plans, 

saying that sustained financial and technical support were needed to ensure that targets could be met. 

Many also emphasized the need for effective, regionally appropriate and economically, technically and 

environmentally viable alternatives to HCFCs. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

26

196. A large number of representatives spoke about the control of HFCs. Many supported taking 

steps under the Protocol to begin addressing HFCs, arguing that their expanding use resulted almost 

entirely from the Protocol’s controls on CFCs and HCFCs and that doing so would yield important 

climate benefits. Others said that the parties should not address HFCs; they said, among other things, 

that they were beyond the scope of the Protocol and more appropriately addressed under the 

Framework Convention on Climate Change. In addition, they said that the challenges of HCFC 

phase-out and destruction of banks of ozone-depleting substances still remained and that viable 

alternatives to HFCs were not available in all sectors. At the same time, many representatives 

acknowledged that the negative impacts of high-GWP alternatives on the climate had to be carefully 

considered. 

197. In that regard, several representatives urged that synergies with other multilateral 

environmental agreements be enhanced to address the broader climate change issues arising from 

implementation of the Protocol. 

198. Methyl bromide use, particularly in quarantine and pre-shipment applications, remained a 

concern. Several representatives observed that commercially and technically viable alternatives were 

available, and they urged parties using methyl bromide, particularly for quarantine and pre-shipment, 

to make use of them. Representatives from developing countries called attention to the need for shared 

information on alternatives and the transfer of technologies. Some proposed improved monitoring and 

the harmonization of trade standards as a more strategic means of reducing quarantine and 

pre-shipment use. 

199. Many representatives agreed that ensuring the environmentally sound management and 

destruction of the growing amount of ozone-depleting substances, including those contained in banks, 

would enhance 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 by a lack of material and financial resources and called upon the 

Multilateral Fund to provide assistance in that area. One representative described his country’s success 

in developing effective destruction technologies and offered to share knowledge on the subject. 

200. A number of 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 strengthening for the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs; eliminating production 

and consumption of methyl bromide, including for quarantine and pre-shipment applications; 

destruction of obsolete ozone-depleting substances; and control of illegal trade and illegal disposal of 

such substances. 

201. In his statement, the representative of Nepal appealed to the parties to reconsider his country’s 

request to be treated as a party in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Article 4 of the Montreal 

Protocol, reiterating the arguments made during the preparatory segment. 

202. The representative of South Sudan affirmed his Government’s commitment to ratifying the 

Protocol and its amendments, and he requested the support of the parties to enable South Sudan to 

achieve the targets of the Protocol. 

203. The representative of the International Institute of Refrigeration, an intergovernmental 

organization, noted the importance of refrigeration and cooling technologies to modern human life, 

particularly in developing countries in the tropics. He recommended the coordination of efforts under 

the Montreal Protocol and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, an emphasis on training for 

better refrigerant containment, incentives for the use of low-GWP alternatives and enhanced 

availability and use of information by all parties. 

204. The representative of a non-governmental organization expressed regret for what she termed a 

failure of leadership and a lack of progress in the discussions on phasing out HFCs under the Montreal 

Protocol. Citing the work of several organizations employing proven HFC-free alternatives to HCFCs, 

she said that the chemical industry was misusing the political process and the Montreal Protocol to 

serve solely commercial interests, at the expense of environmental safety, and she called on the parties 

to stop funding HFC-based projects. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

27

 VI. Report of the co-chairs of the preparatory segment and 

consideration of the decisions recommended for adoption at the 

ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna 

Convention and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol 

205. The Co-Chairs of the preparatory segment reported at various points during the meeting. They 

noted that, although negotiations during the preparatory segment had been difficult, considerable 

progress had been made on a number of important issues. Thanking 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, they commended the draft decisions approved during the segment for adoption by the Meeting 

of the Parties.

 VII. Dates and venues for the tenth meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Fourth Meeting 

of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

206. In his statement during the high-level segment, the representative of Switzerland conveyed an 

offer by his Government to host the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. In 

the light of that offer the parties adopted a decision providing that the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the 

Parties would take place in Geneva from 12 to 16 November 2012 unless other suitable arrangements 

needed to be made in consultation with the Bureau. They also adopted decisions to the effect that the 

tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention would be held back to back 

with the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties, at a time and place to be determined. Also in his 

statement during the high-level segment the representative of Côte d’Ivoire announced that his 

Government desired to host the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and 

would explore the possibility of doing so with the Secretariat. 

 VIII. Other matters 

207. The parties took up no other matters during the high-level segment. 

 IX. Adoption of decisions by the Conference of the Parties to the 

Vienna Convention at its ninth meeting 

208. The Conference of the Parties decides: 

 IX/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the 

Montreal Protocol and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and 

Beijing amendments to the Montreal Protocol 

1. To note with satisfaction the large number of countries that have ratified the Vienna 

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer; 

2. To note that, as at 1 November 2011, 196 parties had ratified the London Amendment to 

the Montreal Protocol, 194 parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 

185 parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and 171 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 

amendments to the Montreal Protocol, taking into account that universal participation is necessary to 

ensure the protection of the ozone layer; 

 IX/2: Eighth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers and the 

Trust Fund for Research and Systematic Observation relevant to 

the Vienna Convention 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

28

Recalling that, pursuant to the objective defined in decision I/6 of the Conference of the Parties 

to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the ozone research managers review 

ongoing national and international research and monitoring programmes with a view to ensuring the 

proper coordination of those programmes and identifying gaps that need to be addressed, 

Recognizing that it is necessary and important to continue to monitor changes in the ozone 

layer and to understand the scale of the impact on the ozone layer of increasing concentrations of 

greenhouse gases and the implementation of the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone 

Layer, 

Recalling decision VI/2, by which the Conference of the Parties established the Vienna 

Convention Trust Fund for Financing Activities on Research and Systematic Observations Relevant to 

the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 

Noting with appreciation the contributions to the Trust Fund by several parties and the joint 

efforts of the World Meteorological Organization and the Ozone Secretariat in the implementation of 

the activities funded by the Trust Fund, 

Noting that the Ozone Research Managers at their eighth meeting stated that although there 

had been progress in building capacity since their seventh meeting in 2008, much remained to be 

accomplished, 

1. To take note with appreciation of the report of the eighth meeting of the Ozone 

Research Managers; 

2. To encourage parties: 

(a) To adopt the recommendations in report No. 53 of the World Meteorological 

Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project; 

(b) To maintain research capabilities that enable measurements and scientific 

understanding of ozone depletion and evolution in a changing atmosphere including: 

(i) Improvement and validation of coupled chemistry-climate and earth system 

models to take better account of ozone parameters and other atmospheric 

processes; 

(ii) Continued and increased exploitation of long-term measurements and data for 

scientific process studies; 

(iii) Support for fundamental laboratory studies to estimate photochemical reaction 

rates and to refine and update older measurements; 

(c) To maintain, expand and integrate systematic ozone-related observations that 

are critical to understanding and monitoring the long term changes in atmospheric 

composition and the associated response in ground level ultraviolet radiation; 

(d) To continue to implement the recommendations of the seventh meeting of the 

Ozone Research Managers in relation to data archiving and to encourage the reprocessing and 

salvage of archival data; 

(e) To accord priority to supporting and implementing the following capacitybuilding activities recommended by the Ozone Research Managers: 

(i) Development of a mechanism under the auspices of the World Meteorological 

Organization Global Atmosphere Watch to enable countries to donate 

good-quality, operational equipment through the World Meteorological 

Organization for deployment to developing countries as a means of enhancing 

the global operational network of ozone-observing and UV-observing stations, 

including tasking the scientific advisory committees for ozone and ultraviolet 

radiation of Global Atmosphere Watch with assessing the overall global needs 

for the distribution of the equipment, noting the need to ensure training of experts 

from developing countries in this technology; 

(ii) Provision of financial support from the Trust Fund to support the participation of 

professional and technical persons from developing countries in the following 

workshops: 

a. Second Dobson workshop planned for 2013 as a follow-up to the 

successful workshop held in the Czech Republic in 2011; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

29

b. Ozone-observing and UV-observing workshop organized in 

conjunction with the 2012 quadrennial ozone symposium in Toronto, 

Canada; 

3. To encourage the Ozone Research Managers to develop measures that would enable 

them to assess the effectiveness of capacity-building activities in the future; 

4. In relation to the Trust Fund: 

(a) To urge all parties and relevant international organizations to make voluntary 

financial and/or in kind contributions to the Trust Fund; 

(b) To request the Secretariat to continue to invite parties and relevant international 

organizations annually to make voluntary contributions to the Fund and, with each such invitation to 

parties, to report on the prior years’ contributions, funded activities and planned future activities; 

(c) To request the Secretariat and invite the World Meteorological Organization to 

continue their cooperation with regard to activities funded by the Trust Fund; 

(d) Also to request the Secretariat and invite the World Meteorological Organization 

to strive for regional balance in the activities supported by the Trust Fund and to encourage 

complementary funding to maximize Trust Fund resources; 

(e) To request the Secretariat to report to the Conference of the Parties at its tenth 

meeting on the operation of, contributions to and expenditures from the Trust Fund and on the 

activities funded by the Trust Fund since its inception; 

5. To encourage the national ozone focal points to distribute information on, and 

coordinate, monitoring and scientific activities in their countries where relevant; 

 IX/3: Financial matters: financial reports and budgets 

Recalling decision VIII/4 on financial matters, 

Taking note of the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the 

Protection of the Ozone Layer for the biennium 2010–2011, ended 31 December 2010, 

Recognizing that voluntary contributions are an essential complement for the effective 

implementation of the Vienna Convention, 

Welcoming the continued excellent management by the Secretariat of the finances of the Trust 

Fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 

1. To take note with appreciation of the financial statement of the Trust Fund for the 

biennium 2010–2011 ended 31 December 2010 and the report on the actual expenditures for 2010 as 

compared to the approvals for that year; 

2. To approve the 2012 budget for the Trust Fund in the amount of $723,063, the budget 

for 2013 in the amount of $735,622 and the budget for 2014 in the amount of $1,280,311 as set out in 

annex I to the report of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention 

and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;2

 

3. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down the amounts of $120,063 in 2012, $132,622 

in 2013 and $677,311 in 2014, respectively, from the Fund balance for the purpose of reducing that 

balance; 

4. To ensure, as a consequence of the drawdowns referred to in paragraph 3, that the 

contributions to be paid by the parties amount to $603,000 for each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 

as set out in annex II to the report of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna 

Convention and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol; 

5. To urge all parties to pay their outstanding contributions as well as their future 

contributions promptly and in full; 

 

2 UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

30

 IX/4: Tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna 

Convention 

To convene the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention back 

to back with the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 

 X. Adoption of decisions by the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol 

209. The Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties decides: 

 XXIII/1: Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the 

Montreal Protocol and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and 

Beijing amendments to the Montreal Protocol 

1. To note with satisfaction the large number of countries that have ratified the Vienna 

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer; 

2. To note that, as at 1 November 2011, 196 parties had ratified the London Amendment to 

the Montreal Protocol, 194 parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 

185 parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and 171 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 

amendments to the Montreal Protocol, taking into account that universal participation is necessary to 

ensure the protection of the ozone layer; 

 XXIII/2: Essential-use nominations for controlled substances for 

2012 

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 technically and economically feasible alternatives or 

substitutes are available that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health, 

Noting the Panel’s conclusion that technically satisfactory alternatives to 

chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers are available for some therapeutic formulations for 

treating asthma and chronic obstructive 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, 

Welcoming the continued progress in several parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 

in reducing their reliance on chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are 

developed, receive regulatory approval and are marketed for sale, 

Welcoming the announcement by Bangladesh that it will not, in the future, submit essential-use 

nominations for the use of chlorofluorocarbons in metered-dose inhalers, 

1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption for 2012 necessary to satisfy 

essential uses of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease specified in the 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 nominations in accordance with the criteria set out 

indecision 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 2012 to consider sourcing 

required pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons initially from stockpiles where they are available 

and accessible, provided that such stockpiles are used subject to the conditions established by the 

Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/28; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

31

4. To encourage parties with stockpiles of pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons 

potentially available for export to parties with essential-use exemptions in 2012 to notify the 

Secretariat of such quantities and of a contact point by 31 December 2011; 

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 pharmaceutical-grade chlorofluorocarbons 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 request parties to consider domestic regulations to ban the launch or sale of new 

chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhaler products, even if such products have been approved; 

8. To encourage parties to fast-track their administration processes for the registration of 

metered-dose inhaler products in order to speed up the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free 

alternatives; 

9. To approve the authorization granted Mexico by the Secretariat, in consultation with 

the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, for the emergency essential-use of six metric tonnes 

of pharmaceutical-grade CFC-12 for the production of metered-dose inhalers, to cover the period 

2011–2012; 

 Annex to decision XXIII/2 

 Essential-use authorizations for 2012 for chlorofluorocarbons for 

metered-dose inhalers (in metric tonnes) 

Parties 2012

Bangladesh 40.35

China 532.04

Pakistan 24.1

Russian Federation 212

 XXIII/3: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for 

aerospace applications in the Russian Federation 

 Taking note of 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 that the Russian Federation has presented the Chemical Technical Options Committee 

with the requested information and explanations regarding the current and future situation in relation 

to the use of CFC-113 in the aerospace industry, 

Noting that the Committee has reported that the new nomination of the Russian Federation 

satisfies, in principle, the criteria to qualify as essential use under the decision IV/25, including the 

absence of available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are 

acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health, 

Noting that the Committee recommends the acceleration of efforts to introduce appropriate 

alternatives, to investigate materials compatible with alternatives, and the adoption of newly designed 

equipment to complete the phase-out of CFC-113 within an accelerated time schedule, 

1. To authorize an essential-use exemption for the production and consumption in 2012 

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 continue to explore further the possibility of 

importing CFC-113 of the required quality for its aerospace industry needs from available global 

stocks as recommended by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

32

3. To request the Russian Federation to accelerate its efforts to introduce alternative 

solvents in order to gradually reduce consumption of the CFC-113 in the aerospace industry to a 

maximum of 75 tons in 2015; 

4. To request the Russian Federation to provide as part of its next essential-use exemption 

nomination a final phase-out plan with an expected end-date, the gradual reduction steps and 

information on the source of the CFC-113; 

 XXIII/4: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2013 

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 to by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties, 

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 critical-use exemptions should take into account 

the extent to which methyl bromide is available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks 

of banked or recycled methyl bromide in licensing, permitting or authorizing the production and 

consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses, 

1. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2013 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 in decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and 

consumption for 2013 set forth in table B 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; 

2. That parties shall endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of 

methyl bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to the present decision; 

3. To recognize the continued contribution of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee’s expertise and to agree that, in accordance with section 4.1 of the 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 relevant expertise are involved in developing its 

recommendations; 

4. That each party that has an agreed critical-use exemption shall renew its commitment 

to ensuring that the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision 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; 

5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that its 

consideration of nominations analyse the impact of national, subnational, and local regulations and law 

on the potential use of methyl bromide alternatives, and include a description of the analysis in the 

critical use nomination report; 

6. To urge parties operating under critical-use exemptions to put in place effective 

systems to discourage the accumulation of methyl bromide produced under the exemptions;

Annex to decision XXIII/4 

Table A 

Agreed critical-use categories for 2013 (metric tonnes) 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

33

Australia Strawberry runners (29.760), rice (2.374)

Canada Mills (7.848), strawberry runners (Prince Edward Island) (5.261)

Japan Chestnuts (3.317)

United States of 

America 

Commodities (.822), mills and foodprocessing structures (25.334), dried cured 

pork (3.730), cucurbits (3.886), eggplant – field (1.381), nursery stock – fruit, 

nuts, flowers (.476), orchard replants (6.230), ornamentals (40.818), peppers – 

field (5.604), strawberry – field (461.186), strawberry runners (3.752), tomatoes 

– field (9.107)

Table B 

Permitted levels of production and consumption for 2013 (metric tonnes) 

Australia 32.134

Canada 13.109

Japan 3.317

United States of 

America

562.326*

* Minus available stocks. 

 XXIII/5: Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide 

Recognizing the value of developing a strategic view on the use of methyl bromide for 

quarantine and pre-shipment purposes and the importance of enhancing the data available for that 

purpose, 

Mindful that consistent reporting on methyl bromide consumption for quarantine and 

pre-shipment purposes would facilitate monitoring and review of quarantine and pre-shipment 

consumption and uses, 

Recalling decision XI/13, and in particular its paragraph 3, requiring each party to provide the 

Secretariat with statistical data on the amount of methyl bromide used annually for quarantine and 

pre-shipment applications, 

Recalling also the recommendation of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the 

International Plant Protection Convention on the replacement or reduction of the use of methyl 

bromide as a phytosanitary measure3

, adopted in 2008, and decisions XX/6 and XXI/10, encouraging 

parties to the Montreal Protocol to implement that recommendation, 

Recalling the definitions of “quarantine” and “pre-shipment” set forth in decisions VII/5 and 

XI/12 and noting the importance of applying them consistently, 

Recalling that under specification 16 alternatives to methyl bromide use for phytosanitary 

purposes approved by national plant protection organizations are to be submitted under the 

International Plant Protection Convention,

1. To encourage parties to follow the recommendation of the Commission on 

Phytosanitary Measures of the International Plant Protection Convention that data on current usage of 

methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure should be accurately recorded and collated, including 

information on the quantities of methyl bromide used in kilograms, a description of the articles 

fumigated, where appropriate, whether the use was on imported or exported commodities and target 

pests; 

2. To invite parties in a position to do so, on a voluntary basis, to submit information to 

the Ozone Secretariat by 31 March 2013 on: 

(a) The amount of methyl bromide used to comply with phytosanitary 

requirements of destination countries; 

(b) Phytosanitary requirements for imported commodities that must be met 

through the use of methyl bromide and to request the Secretariat to forward the information to 

the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; 

 

3 CPM-3 (2008) Report, Appendix 6. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

34

3. To urge parties to comply with the reporting requirements of Article 7 and to provide 

data on the amount of methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment applications annually and 

to invite parties in a position to do so, on a voluntary basis, to supplement such data by reporting to the 

Secretariat information on methyl bromide uses recorded and collated pursuant to the recommendation 

of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures; 

4. To encourage parties to consider avoiding requiring multiple treatments of 

consignments with methyl bromide unless a risk of an infestation with a pest has been identified; 

5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide, for 

consideration by the Open-ended Working group at its thirty-second meeting, a concise report that: 

(a) Summarizes data submitted under article 7 of the Montreal Protocol on a 

regional basis, providing analysis of trends in that data; 

(b) Provides guidance on procedures and methods for data collection on methyl 

bromide use for quarantine and pre-shipment for parties that have not yet established such 

procedures and methods or wish to improve existing ones; 

6. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide, for 

consideration by the Open-ended Working group at its thirty-third meeting, a concise report based on 

the information provided in accordance with paragraph 2 above; 

7. To request the Secretariat to consult the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection 

Convention on how to ensure and improve the exchange of information on methyl bromide uses and 

alternative treatments between the Convention and Montreal Protocol bodies and on the systems 

available to facilitate access to such information by national authorities and private organizations, and 

to report to the Open-ended Working group at its thirty-second meeting on the outcome of such 

consultation and on cooperation in general between the Convention and the Protocol; 

 XXIII/6: Global laboratory and analytical-use exemption 

Recalling decision XXI/6, in which parties are requested to investigate the possibility of 

replacing ozone-depleting substances with alternatives identified by the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel in its 2010 progress report, 

Recalling further decision XI/15, by which the parties, among other things, eliminated the use 

of ozone-depleting substances for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water 

from the global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses, 

Acknowledging the work being carried out by the Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel to identify ozone-depleting substances still being used for laboratory and analytical purposes, 

ozone-depleting substances that might still be mandated in certain standards, and available alternatives 

to ozone-depleting substances, 

Noting that individual parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal 

Protocol have reported difficulty in implementing existing alternatives to the use of carbon 

tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water and claim to need 

more time for information collection and related policy framework development, 

1. To allow parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until 31 December 2014 to 

deviate from the existing ban on the use of carbon tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total 

petroleum hydrocarbons in water in individual cases where such parties consider doing so to be 

justified; 

2. To clarify that any deviation beyond that described in the preceding paragraph should 

take place only in accordance with an essential-use exemption, in particular in respect of: 

(a) The use of carbon tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum 

hydrocarbons in water beyond 2014; 

(b) Any other use already excluded from the global laboratory exemption beyond 2012; 

3. To request parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to continue to take action to 

replace ozone-depleting substances for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in 

water as soon as possible; 

4. To request parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that use carbon 

tetrachloride for the testing of oil, grease or total petroleum hydrocarbons in water in accordance with 

paragraph 1 above to report annually to the Secretariat, together with their Article 7 report every year, 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

35

on the quantities of carbon tetrachloride used, including information on the procedures followed for 

using the substance, any alternative methods or procedures being investigated and the expected 

timeframe during which the Party will make use of the global exemption; 

5. That the Implementation Committee and the Meeting of the Parties should defer until 

2015 consideration of the compliance status in relation to the control measures for carbon tetrachloride 

for the testing of oil, grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water of parties operating under 

paragraph 1 of Article 5 that provide evidence to the Secretariat, with their data reports submitted in 

accordance with Article 7, showing that any deviation from the consumption target for carbon 

tetrachloride is due to the use of that substance in accordance with paragraph 1 above; 

6. To request the Secretariat to prepare a reporting form to assist parties reporting 

information under paragraph 4 above; 

7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review information 

provided by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in accordance with paragraph 4 above, 

provide those parties with information and advice on means and methods of achieving a transition to 

the use of non-ozone-depleting substances, and report annually on information provided and progress 

in assisting parties; 

8. To request the Panel and interested parties, with support from the Secretariat, to 

prepare information on laboratory and analytical uses for the purpose of assisting parties to achieve a 

transition to alternative methods and procedures and invites parties to consider contributing resources 

and information for that purpose; 

9. To request the Panel to continue its work in reviewing international standards that 

mandate the use of ozone-depleting substances and to work with the organizations that promulgate 

such standards to include non-ozone-depleting substances and procedures as applicable; 

10. To remind parties of the categories and examples of laboratory uses contained in annex 

IV of the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, as updated by decision XI/15 and listed by the 

Panel in its progress reports, which can be used as a basis for determining what uses might be deemed 

to be laboratory and analytical uses; 

 XXIII/7: Use of controlled substances as process agents 

Taking note with appreciation of the 2011 progress report of the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel as it pertains to process agents, 

Recalling that tables A and B of decision X/14 on process agent uses have been updated by 

decisions XV/6, XVII/7, XIX/15, XXI/3 and XXII/8, 

Noting that the Panel’s 2011 progress report takes into account the information provided by 

parties and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal 

Protocol in accordance with decision XXI/3, 

Noting also that in the 2011 progress report the Panel proposes the removal of 27 processes 

from table A and indicates that only four parties reported process agent uses in 2009, 

Noting with appreciation that most parties reported significantly lower emissions than those 

listed in table B, 

Acknowledging the role that emissions from process agent uses might play in contributing to 

the abundance of carbon tetrachloride in the atmosphere and the need to reduce such emissions, 

Recalling that according to decision IV/12 emissions of insignificant quantities of controlled 

substances, including from their use as process agents, are not considered to be controlled substances 

as defined in Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol, 

Recalling also that decision IV/12 urges parties to take steps to minimize emissions of 

ozone-depleting substances used as process agents, including such steps as avoidance of the creation 

of such emissions and reduction of emissions using practicable control technologies, process changes, 

containment or destruction, 

Recalling further decision XIX/15, in which the parties agreed to classify the use of carbon 

tetrachloride for the production of vinyl chloride monomer as a process agent use, 

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

decision; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

36

2. To urge those parties that have yet to submit information on process agent uses as 

requested in decisions X/14 and XXI/3 to do so as a matter of urgency, and no later than 31 March 

2012; 

3. To remind parties that have provided information in accordance with decision XXI/3 

indicating that they have process agent uses to provide further information, in particular on controlled 

substances and process agent applications in accordance with decision X/14, using the format 

available from the Ozone Secretariat; 

4. To urge the parties listed in table B to revisit their maximum values and to report to the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on how those values might be reduced, particularly in 

view of the process agent uses that have ceased; 

5. To request the Panel, as further uses cease in the future, to consider corresponding 

reductions in make-up or consumption and maximum emissions accordingly in future proposals 

concerning table B; 

6. To request the Panel to provide for the thirty-second meeting of the Open-ended 

Working Group a summary report updating its findings on process agent uses, taking into account 

relevant information from previous investigations and including: 

(a) A descriptive overview of the processes using ozone-depleting substances as process 

agents; 

(b) Information about alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in process-agent uses; 

(c) Information on quantities used for process agent uses as reported in accordance with 

article 7 of the Montreal Protocol; 

(d) Information on estimated emissions of ozone-depleting substances from process-agent 

uses and their impact on the ozone layer and the climate; 

(e) Practicable measures to avoid and reduce emissions from process-agent uses; 

7. To revisit the use of controlled substances as process agents at the thirty-second 

meeting of the Open-ended Working Group; 

8. To consider the use of carbon tetrachloride for the production of vinyl chloride 

monomer for the purpose of calculated levels of production and consumption, on an exceptional basis, 

to be a feedstock use until 31 December 2012; 

9. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review the use of 

carbon tetrachloride for the production of vinyl chloride monomer process in India and other parties, if 

applicable, and to report on the results of that review in its 2012 progress report; 

Annex to decision XXIII/7 

Table A: List of uses of controlled substances as process agents 

No. Process agent application Substance Permitted parties 

1 Elimination of NCl3 in chlor-alkali production CTC European Union, Israel, 

United States of 

America 

2 Chlorine recovery by tail gas absorption in chlor-alkali 

production 

CTC European Union, 

United States of 

America 

3 Production of chlorinated rubber CTC European Union 

4 Production of chlorosulfonated polyolefin (CSM) CTC China, United States of 

America 

5 Production of aramid polymer (PPTA) CTC European Union 

6 Production of synthetic fibre sheet CFC-11 United States of 

America 

7 Photochemical synthesis of 

perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of 

Z-perfluoropolyethers and difunctional derivatives 

CFC-12 European Union 

8 Preparation of perfluoropolyether diols with high 

functionality 

CFC-113 European Union 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

37

9 Production of cyclodime CTC European Union 

10 Production of chlorinated polypropene CTC China 

11 Production of chlorinated ethylene vinyl acetate 

(CEVA) 

CTC China 

12 Production of methyl isocyanate derivatives CTC China 

13 Bromination of a styrenic polymer BCM United States of 

America 

14 Production of high modulus polyethylene fibre CFC-113 United States of 

America 

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

Party Make-up or 

consumption 

Maximum emissions 

China 1 103 313 

European Union 1 083 17 

Israel 3.5 0 

United States of America 2 300 181 

Total 4 489.5 511 

 XXIII/8: Investigation of carbon tetrachloride discrepancy 

Taking note of the report from the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the 

Scientific Assessment Panel indicating the existence of a discrepancy between the emissions derived 

from reported production and consumption data from both parties operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 and those not so operating and those inferred from atmospheric measurements, 

Noting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is continuing its work and will 

provide information as called for in decision XXI/8 relating to carbon tetrachloride, 

1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in cooperation with the 

Scientific Assessment Panel, to continue to investigate the possible reasons for the identified 

discrepancy, considering in particular the extent to which the discrepancy could be due to: 

(a) Incomplete or inaccurate historical reporting of carbon tetrachloride produced; 

(b) Uncertainties in the atmospheric lifetime of carbon tetrachloride; 

(c) Carbon tetrachloride from unreported or underestimated sources from both parties 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so operating; 

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report on its work in 

response to paragraph 1 above to the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties; 

 XXIII/9: Additional information on alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances 

To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report in consultation 

with the other scientific experts, if necessary, for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at 

its thirty-second meeting containing information on, among other things: 

(a) The cost of alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are technically proven, 

economically viable and environmentally benign; 

(b) Alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are technically proven, economically 

viable, environmentally benign and suitable for use in high ambient temperatures, including how such 

temperatures may affect efficiency or other factors; 

(c) Quantities and types of alternatives already and projected to be phased in as 

replacements for hydrochlorofluorocarbons, disaggregated by application, both in parties operating 

under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol and parties not so operating; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

38

(d) An assessment of the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of options in 

consultation with scientific experts; 

 XXIII/10: Updating the nomination and operational processes of 

the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its 

subsidiary bodies 

Recalling the terms of reference for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel set forth 

in decision VIII/19 and amended by decision XVIII/19, 

Recalling also decision VII/34 on the organization and functioning of the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel and specifically on efforts to increase the participation of experts from 

parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 (Article 5 parties) and to improve geographical 

expertise and balance, 

Recalling in particular section 2.1 of the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel on the size and balance of the Panel, and the need to promote a membership that 

balances geography and expertise, including the overall goal of achieving a representation of about 

50 per cent for experts from Article 5 parties in the Panel and its technical options committees, 

Recognizing the need for the process and criteria for the appointment of experts to the Panel to 

be transparent and equitable, 

Recalling sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel, on nominations to the Panel and appointment of members to the Panel, and 

specifically the provision that any nominations made by the Panel are to be communicated to the 

relevant party for consultation before recommendations for appointment are made, 

Recognizing the need for parties to receive from the Panel advice of the highest quality and to 

ensure that changes to the nomination process do not have an adverse effect on the expertise of the 

Panel or the quality of its advice, 

Taking note of the information provided by the Panel in its 2011 progress report, in particular 

in response to decision XXII/22, 

1. To request the Panel to compose its technical options committees and its temporary 

subsidiary bodies to reflect a balance of appropriate expertise so that their reports and information are 

comprehensive, objective, and policy neutral and to provide a description in reports by temporary 

subsidiary bodies on how their composition was determined; 

2. To request the Panel to update its matrix of needed capabilities calling for expertise on 

the Panel, its technical options committees and its temporary subsidiary bodies twice a year and to 

publish the matrix on the Secretariat website and in the Panel’s annual progress reports; this matrix 

should include the need for geographic and expertise balance; 

3. Also to request the Panel to ensure that the information in the matrix is clear and 

sufficient to allow a full understanding of needed expertise and that information on the nomination 

process, the selection process, the Panel’s terms of reference and the operation of the Panel and its 

subsidiary bodies is published on the Secretariat website in an easily accessible format; 

4. Further to request the Panel to standardize the information required from potential 

experts for all nominations to the Panel, its technical options committees and its temporary subsidiary 

bodies in line with section 9.5.4 of the 2011 progress report, and to prepare a draft nomination form 

for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting; 

5. To request the Panel to ensure that all nominations for appointments to the Panel, 

including co-chairs of the technical options committee, are agreed to by the national focal points of the 

relevant party; 

6. To request the Panel to ensure that all nominations to its technical options committees 

and its temporary subsidiary bodies have been made in full consultation with the national focal points 

of the relevant party; 

7. That all appointments to the Panel, and its technical options committees, including 

those of co-chairs, should be for a period of no more than four years; 

8. That members of the Panel or of the technical options committee may be re-nominated 

for additional periods of up to four years each; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

39

9. That the terms of all the members of the Panel and its technical options committees 

shall otherwise expire at the end of 2013 and 2014, respectively, in the absence of reappointment by 

the parties prior to that time, except for those experts that have already been nominated for four-year 

periods in past decisions; 

10. That parties may revisit the status of the Panel and its technical options committee 

membership at the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Meetings of the Parties respectively if more time is 

needed by the parties to submit nominations; 

11. To invite the parties having co-chairs and members currently serving on the Panel and 

its technical options committees to submit re-nominations for those experts in line with paragraphs 7, 

8 and 9 of the present decision for consideration at the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Meetings of 

the Parties respectively; 

12. That a decision of the parties is required to confirm any re-appointment to the Panel; 

13. That a decision of the parties is required to confirm any temporary subsidiary body that 

exists for a period of more than one year; 

14. That the parties should confirm, every four years, beginning in 2012, the list of 

technical options committees needed to meet the parties’ requirements; 

15. That the Ozone Secretariat should attend the meetings of the Panel whenever possible 

and appropriate to provide ongoing institutional advice on administrative issues when necessary; 

16. To request the Panel to ensure that all new technical options committee members are 

properly informed of the Panel’s terms of reference, its code of conduct contained in the Panel’s terms 

of reference, relevant decisions of the parties and Panel operational procedures and are requested to 

abide by that guidance; 

17. To request the Panel to revise its draft guidelines on recusal, taking into account 

similar guidelines in other multilateral forums, and provide them to the Open-ended Working Group at 

its thirty-second meeting for consideration by the parties; 

18. To request the Panel to prepare guidelines, for the appointment of the co-chairs of the 

Panel and to provide them to Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting for 

consideration by the parties; 

19. To request the Panel to consider the number of members of each of its subsidiary 

bodies to ensure that their membership is consistent with each of the subsidiary bodies’ workload and 

to propose revision to their numbers to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting 

for the consideration of the parties, taking into account the need for geographical balance in 

accordance with decision VII/34; 

20. To request the Panel to update its terms of reference in accordance with this decision 

and submit it to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting for consideration by the 

parties; 

21. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel not to apply the 

guidelines mentioned in paragraphs 17 and 18 until they are approved by the parties; 

 XXIII/11: Montreal Protocol treatment of ozone-depleting 

substances used to service ships, including ships from other flag 

states 

Taking into account that Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer requires parties to establish and implement systems for licensing imports and exports to 

phase out the production and consumption of Annex A, B, C, and E ozone-depleting substances, 

Taking into account also that consumption is defined under the Montreal Protocol as 

production plus imports minus exports, 

Recognizing that ships use equipment and technologies containing ozone-depleting substances 

onboard during operations in national and international waterways, 

Mindful that many parties registered as flag States are unsure of the reporting requirements for 

ships under the Montreal Protocol, 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

40

Concerned that differing party interpretations of the Montreal Protocol with regard to the sale 

of ozone depleting-substances to ships may result in the miscalculation of consumption or disparities 

in the reporting of consumption, 

1. To request the Ozone Secretariat to prepare a document that collects current 

information about the sale of ozone-depleting-substances to ships, including ships from other flag 

States, for onboard servicing and other onboard uses, including on how parties calculate consumption 

with regard to such sales, and that identifies issues relevant to the treatment of the consumption of 

ozone-depleting substances used to service ships, including flag ships, for onboard uses for submission 

to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting to enable the Twenty-Fourth Meeting 

of the Parties to take a decision on the matter; 

2. To include in the document any guidance and/or information on 

ozone-depleting-substances previously provided to the parties regarding sales to ships for onboard 

uses; 

3. To request the Ozone Secretariat in preparing the document referred to in paragraph 1 

to consult as deemed necessary with relevant international bodies, in particular the International 

Maritime Organization and the World Customs Organization, to include in the document information 

on whether and how those bodies address: 

(a) Trade in ozone-depleting substances for use onboard ships; 

(b) Use of ozone-depleting substances onboard ships; 

and to provide a general overview on the framework applied by those bodies to manage relevant 

activities; 

4. To request that the document be made available to all parties at least six weeks before 

the thirty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group; 

5. To request parties to provide to the Ozone Secretariat, by 1 April 2012, information on 

the current system used by the parties, if any, to regulate and report on ozone-depleting substances 

supplied for the purpose of servicing ships, including ships from other flag States, for onboard use, on 

how they calculate consumption with regard to such ozone-depleting substances, and on any relevant 

cases in which they have supplied, imported or exported such ozone-depleting substances; 

6. Requests the Secretariat to include the information provided pursuant to the preceding 

paragraph in an annex to the document called for in paragraph 1; 

7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide in its 2012 

progress report a summary on the available data concerning the use of ozone-depleting substances on 

ships, including the quantities typically used on different types of ships, the estimated refrigerant bank 

on ships and an estimation of emissions; 

8. To invite parties in a position to do so to provide, to the extent possible, relevant data 

concerning the use of ozone-depleting substances on ships, including the quantities typically used on 

different types of ships, the estimated refrigerant bank on ships and an estimation of emissions to the 

Panel by 1 March 2012; 

 XXIII/12: Adoption of new destruction technologies for 

ozone-depleting substances 

Noting with appreciation of the report of the task force established by the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel in response to decision XXII/10 on destruction technologies for 

ozone-depleting substances, 

Noting that the task force recommends the addition of four technologies to the list of 

destruction processes approved by the parties and indicates that there is insufficient information to 

recommend one technology deemed to hold high potential, 

1. To approve the highlighted destruction processes in the annex to the present decision 

for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol, as additions to the technologies 

listed in annex VI to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties4

 and modified by decisions V/26, 

VII/35 and XIV/6; 

 

4 UNEP/OzL.Pro.4/15. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

41

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue to assess the 

plasma destruction technology for methyl bromide in the light of any additional information that may 

become available and to report to the parties when appropriate; 

3. Also to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue to 

investigate the issues raised in its 2011 progress report regarding performance criteria for destruction 

and removal efficiency compared to destruction efficiency, and regarding verification criteria for the 

destruction of ozone-depleting substances at facilities that use approved destruction technologies, and 

to submit a final report to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting; 
UNEP

Annex to decision XXIII/12 

 Approved destruction processes 

Technology 

Applicability 

Concentrated Sources 

Annex A Annex B Annex C An

Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 1 Gr

Primary CFCs Halons Other CFCs Carbon Tetrachloride Methyl Chloroform HCFCs M

Br

Destruction & Removal 

Efficiency (DRE) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99

Argon Plasma Arc Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DCement Kilns Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DChemical Reaction with H2 and CO2 

Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not D

Gas Phase Catalytic Dehalogenation Approved Not Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DGaseous/Fume Oxidation Approved Not Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DInductively coupled radio frequency plasma 

Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not D

Liquid Injection Incineration 

Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not D

Microwave Plasma Approved Not Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DMunicipal Solid Waste Incineration Nitrogen Plasma Arc Approved Not Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DPorous Thermal Reactor 

Approved Not Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not D

Portable Plasma Arc Approved Not Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DReactor Cracking Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DRotary Kiln Incineration Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not DSuperheated steam reactor 

Approved Not Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not D

Thermal Reaction with Methane 

Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not D
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

43

 XXIII/13: Potential areas of focus for the 2014 quadrennial 

reports of the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental 

Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel 

1. To note with appreciation the excellent and highly useful work of the Scientific 

Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel and their colleagues worldwide in preparing their 2010 assessment reports, 

including the 2011 synthesis report; 

2. To request the three assessment panels to update their 2010 reports in 2014 and submit 

them to the Secretariat by 31 December 2014 for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group 

and by the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties in 2015; 

3. That for its 2014 report, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel should consider 

the most recent scientific information regarding effects on human health and the environment of 

changes in the ozone layer and in ultraviolet radiation, including: 

(a) Effects of ultraviolet radiation reaching the biosphere and how those effects relate to 

physical, biological and environmental processes; 

(b) Adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation on human health, including cancers, eye 

damage, infectious and other diseases and the beneficial effects of ultraviolet radiation; 

(c) Effects on the biodiversity and functioning of ecosystems, including the delivery of 

ecosystem services such as food production; 

(d) Effects of ultraviolet radiation on materials, including materials used in building 

construction; 

(e) Risks to human health and the environment from substances that affect the ozone 

layer; 

4. That the 2014 report of the Scientific Assessment Panel should include: 

(a) Assessment of the state of the ozone layer and its future evolution, including in respect 

of atmospheric changes from, for example, sudden stratospheric warming or accelerated 

Brewer-Dobson circulation; 

(b) Evaluation of the Antarctic ozone hole and Arctic winter/spring ozone depletion and 

the predicted changes in these phenomena, with a particular focus on temperatures in the polar 

stratosphere; 

(c) Evaluation of trends in the concentration in the atmosphere of ozone-depleting 

substances and their consistency with reported production and consumption of those substances and 

the likely implications for the state of the ozone layer and the atmosphere; 

(d) Assessment of the interaction between the ozone layer and the atmosphere; including: 

(i) The effect of polar ozone depletion on tropospheric climate; 

(ii) The effects of atmosphere-ocean coupling; 

(e) Description and interpretation of observed ozone changes and ultraviolet radiation, 

along with future projections and scenarios for those variables, taking into account among other things 

the expected impacts to the atmosphere; 

(f) Assessment of the effects of ozone-depleting substances and other ozone-relevant 

substances, if any, with stratospheric influences, and their degradation products, the identification of 

such substances, their ozone-depletion potential and other properties; 

(g) Identification of any other threats to the ozone layer; 

5. That in its 2014 report the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should 

consider the following topics: 

(a) Technical progress in all consumption sectors and destruction of ozone-depleting 

substances; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

44

(b) Accounting for production and consumption for the various applications of 

ozone-depleting substances; 

(c) Technically and economically feasible alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, in 

consumption sectors taking into account their overall performance; 

(d) Status of banks containing ozone-depleting substances, including those maintained for 

essential and critical uses, and the options available for handling them; 

(e) Challenges facing parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal 

Protocol in phasing out remaining ozone-depleting substances such as methyl bromide and 

maintaining the phase-outs already achieved; 

 XXIII/14: Key challenges facing methyl bromide phase-out in 

parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5

Noting that the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s task force on the 

2012–2014 replenishment does not include a funding requirement for methyl bromide phase-out 

activities in Africa for the triennium 2012–2014, since all of the eligible funding for the region has 

already been approved, 

Aware that methyl bromide is the only ozone-depleting substance directly connected to food 

security (production and post-harvest applications), and that its phase-out could easily be reversed, 

Considering that it is necessary to continue to use chemical and non-chemical alternatives, and 

that the efficacy of those alternatives in the short term, medium term and long term should be taken 

into consideration, 

Noting with concern that some applications of methyl bromide, such as the treatment of 

high-moisture fresh dates, still lack alternatives, 

Aware that methyl bromide consumption, particularly in the quarantine and pre-shipment 

sector, is increasing in many parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, 

Acknowledging that some African countries report that there is strong pressure to return to 

methyl bromide use as a result of the non-sustainability of alternatives, both in terms of availability 

and cost, 

Noting that some African countries further report that certain chemical and non-chemical 

alternatives that have been adopted to replace methyl bromide in Africa have been unsustainable for 

various technical, economic and/or regulatory reasons, 

Aware that some chemical alternatives that have been adopted and are relied upon are being or 

will be banned completely in the future, Concerned that the application of some chemical alternatives 

is complicated and not cost-effective, 

Recalling that methyl bromide is used in Africa to protect crops, which are considered to be 

the backbone of the economies of many parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, 

Mindful that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee pointed out in its May 2011 

progress report that parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 might wish to submit critical-use 

nominations for the remaining uses of methyl bromide that they consider appropriate for 2015 and 

possibly thereafter, 

Taking into consideration the difficult and complex technical process involved in submitting 

critical-use nominations, 

1. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation 

of the Montreal Protocol to consider requesting its Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, when 

carrying out the evaluation approved at its sixty-fifth meeting on methyl bromide projects in Africa, to 

consider options for a strategy to achieve the sustainable use of effective alternatives to methyl 

bromide in Africa; 

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in view of its May 2011 

progress report, to consider whether the guidelines and criteria for the preparation of critical-use 

nominations of methyl bromide need any modification to take into account the situation of parties 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and to report on this issue to the Open-ended Working Group 

at its thirty-third meeting; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

45

 XXIII/15: 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 

1. To adopt a budget for the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal 

Protocol for 2012–2014 of $450,000,000 on the understanding that $34,900,000 of that budget will be 

provided from anticipated contributions due to the Multilateral Fund and other sources for the 

2009-2011 triennium, and that $15,100,000 will be provided from interest accruing to the Fund during 

the 2012–2014 triennium. The parties note that outstanding contributions from some parties with 

economies in transition in the period 2009–2011 stand at $5,924,635; 

2. To adopt the scale of contributions for the Multilateral Fund based on a replenishment 

of $133,333,334 for 2012, $133,333,333 for 2013, and $133,333,333 for 2014 as it appears in 

annex III to the report of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention 

and the Twenty-third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;5

3. That the Executive Committee should take action to ensure, as far as possible, that the 

whole of the budget for 2012–2014 is committed by the end of 2014, and that parties not operating 

under paragraph 1 of Article 5 should make timely payments in accordance with paragraph 7 of 

decision XI/6; 

 XXIII/16: Extension of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the 

2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 

1. To direct the Treasurer to extend the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism to the period 

2012–2014; 

2. That parties choosing to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in national currencies will calculate their contributions based 

on the average United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period commencing 1 January 2011; 

3. That, subject to paragraph 4 below, parties not choosing to pay in national currencies 

pursuant to the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism will continue to pay in United States dollars; 

4. That no party should change the currency selected for its contribution in the course of 

the triennium 2012–2014; 

5. That only parties with inflation rate fluctuations of less than 10 per cent, as per 

published figures of the International Monetary Fund, for the preceding triennium will be eligible to 

use the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism; 

6. To urge parties to pay their contributions to the Multilateral Fund in full and as early as 

possible in accordance with paragraph 7 of decision XI/6; 

7. To agree that if the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism is to be used for the replenishment 

period 2015–2017 parties choosing to pay their contributions in national currencies will calculate their 

contributions based on the average United Nations exchange rate for the six-month period 

commencing 1 January 2014; 

 XXIII/17: Administrative and financial matters: financial reports 

and budgets 

Recalling decision XXII/21 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 2010-2011, ended 31 December 2010,

Recognizing that voluntary contributions are an essential 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 2012 budget in the amount of $4,949,012 United States dollars and to 

take note of the proposed budget of $4,896,659 for 2013, as set out in annex IV to the report of the 

 

5 Ibid. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

46

ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third 

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;6

2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $672,079 in 2012 and to note the proposed 

drawdown of $619,726 in 2013; 

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 2012 and to note the contributions of 

$4,276,933 for 2013, as set out in annex V to the report of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol; 

4. That the contributions of individual parties for 2012 shall be listed in annex IV to the 

report of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the 

Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties; 

5. To authorize the Secretariat to maintain the operating cash reserve at 15 per cent of the 

2012 budget to be used to meet the final expenditures under the Trust Fund; 

6. To encourage parties, non-parties and other stakeholders to contribute financially and 

with other means to assist members of the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies with 

their continued participation in the assessment activities under the Protocol; 

7. To urge all parties to pay both their outstanding contributions and their future 

contributions promptly and in full; 

 XXIII/18: Membership of the Implementation Committee 

1. To note with appreciation the work carried out by the Implementation Committee under 

the Non-Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol in 2011; 

2. To confirm the positions of Armenia, Germany, Guinea (replacing Algeria), Nicaragua 

and Sri Lanka as members of the Committee for one further year and to select Lebanon, Poland, Saint 

Lucia, the United States of America and Zambia as members of the Committee for a two-year period 

beginning on 1 January 2012; 

3. To note the selection of Mr. W. L. Sumathipala (Sri Lanka) to serve as President and of 

Mr. Janusz Kozakiewicz (Poland) to serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Committee for one 

year beginning on 1 January 2012; 

 XXIII/19: Membership of the Executive Committee of the 

Multilateral Fund 

1. To note with appreciation the work carried out by the Executive Committee of the 

Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with the assistance of the Fund 

secretariat in 2011; 

2. To endorse the selection of Belgium, Canada, Finland, Japan, Romania, 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 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, India, Kenya, Jordan and Mali as members 

representing parties operating under that paragraph, for one year beginning 1 January 2012; 

3. To note the selection of Mr. Xiao Xuezhi (China) to serve as Chair and Ms. Fiona 

Walters (United Kingdom) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year beginning 

1 January 2012; 

 XXIII/20: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

To endorse the selection of Mr. Ghazi Odat (Jordan) and Ms. Gudi Alkemade (Netherlands) as 

Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2012; 

 

6 Ibid. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

47

 XXIII/21: Endorsement of a new co-chair of the Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee and a senior expert of the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

1. To thank Mr. Masaaki Yamabe (Japan) for his long and outstanding efforts on behalf 

of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as co-chair of the Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee; 

2. To endorse Mr. Yamabe (Japan) 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 reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; 

3. To endorse Mr. Keiichi Ohnishi (Japan), a member of the Chemicals Technical Options 

Committee, as a new co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for a term of four years, 

subject to re-endorsement by the parties in accordance with section 2.3 of the terms of reference of the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; 

 XXIII/22: Data and information provided by the parties in 

accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol 

Noting with appreciation that 192 parties of the 196 that should have reported data for 2010 

have done so and that 92 of those parties reported their data by 30 June 2011 in accordance with 

decision XV/15, 

Noting with concern, however, that the following parties have not reported 2010 data: Libya, 

Liechtenstein, Peru and Yemen, 

Noting that their failure to report their 2010 data in accordance with Article 7 places those 

parties in non-compliance with their data-reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol until such 

time as the Secretariat receives their outstanding data, 

Noting also that a lack of timely data reporting by parties impedes effective monitoring and 

assessment of parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol, 

Noting further that reporting by 30 June each year greatly facilitates the work of the Executive 

Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in assisting 

parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol to comply with the Protocol’s control 

measures, 

1. To urge the parties listed in the present decision to work closely with the implementing 

agencies, where appropriate, and report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency; 

2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of those parties at its 

forty-eighth meeting; 

3. To encourage parties to continue to report consumption and production data as soon as 

figures are available, and preferably by 30 June each year, as agreed in decision XV/15; 

 XXIII/23: Potential non-compliance in 2009 with the provisions on 

consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II 

(halons), by Libya and request for a plan of action 

Noting that Libya ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

on 11 July 1990, the London Amendment on 12 July 2001 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 

24 September 2004 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 $7,627,354 from the Multilateral Fund in accordance with Article 

10 of the Protocol to enable Libya to achieve compliance with the Protocol, 

Noting further that Libya has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in 

Annex A, group II (halons), for 2009 of 1.8 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the party’s maximum 

allowable consumption of zero ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that in the 

absence of further clarification, Libya is therefore presumed to be in non-compliance with the control 

measures under the Protocol, 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

48

1. To request Libya to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 

31 March 2012, for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its forty-eighth meeting an 

explanation for its excess consumption of halons, together with a plan of action with time-specific 

benchmarks to ensure the party’s prompt return to compliance; 

2. To monitor closely Libya’s progress with regard to the phase-out of halons: to the 

degree that the party is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should 

continue to be treated in the same manner as a party in good standing and, in that regard, Libya should 

continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance with 

item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by the Meeting of the Parties in respect of 

non-compliance; 

3. To caution Libya, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in 

the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner the Meeting of the Parties will 

consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures, which may include the 

possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons that is the 

subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing 

situation of non-compliance; 

 XXIII/24: Difficulties faced by Iraq as a new party 

Noting with appreciation Iraq’s efforts to comply with the requirements of the Vienna 

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol and all its amendments, 

Recognizing the continued difficulties faced by Iraq as the result of its becoming a party to the 

Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol and all its amendments shortly before key phase-out 

dates, 

Recognizing also the security situation and the political, economic and social difficulties faced 

by Iraq over the past two decades, 

Acknowledging Iraq’s commitment to phasing out ozone-depleting substances under the 

Montreal Protocol and its amendments within a limited time frame, 

1. To urge all exporting countries to liaise with the Government of Iraq, as feasible, prior 

to the export of any ozone-depleting substances to Iraq in order to support the local authorities in 

controlling the import of ozone-depleting substances and combating illegal trade; 

2. To note the need for extra security and attention to logistical difficulties in the 

implementation of phase-out projects in Iraq, including resources adequate to enable implementing 

agency personnel to operate in the country; 

3. To request the implementing agencies to continue to take into account Iraq’s special 

situation and to provide it with appropriate assistance; 

 XXIII/25: Non-reporting of 2009 data on 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons by Yemen in accordance with Article 7 

of the Montreal Protocol 

Noting with appreciation that Yemen in October 2010 reported all its data for 2009 except for 

data concerning the controlled substances in Annex C, group I (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), 

Noting that the non-reporting of hydrochlorofluorocarbon data places Yemen in 

non-compliance with its reporting obligations under paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol, 

Noting also the party’s explanation at the time of reporting in October 2010 that it had delayed 

reporting its hydrochlorofluorocarbon data because survey activities for the preparation of its 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out management plan were continuing and that it intended to report 

the data upon completion of those activities, 

Noting with concern the lack of response from Yemen to subsequent communications from the 

Secretariat, 

Noting that according to the United Nations Environment Programme, in its role as an 

implementing agency operating in the party, Yemen had completed the collection of data but had yet 

to verify it, 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

49

Recognizing the security situation and the political and social difficulties faced by Yemen in 

recent months, 

1. To urge Yemen to work closely with the implementing agencies to report the required 

data to the Secretariat as a matter of urgency; 

2. To request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of Yemen at its 

forty-eighth meeting; 

 XXIII/26: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the 

European Union 

Noting that the European Union reported the export of 16.616 metric tonnes of Annex C, 

group I, controlled substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) in 2009 to a State classified as not 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol that was also a State not party to the 

Copenhagen Amendment to the Protocol in that year, which places the party in non-compliance with 

the provisions of Article 4 of the Protocol prohibiting trade with any State not party to the Protocol, 

1. That no further action is necessary in view of the party’s implementation of regulatory 

and administrative measures to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the Protocol governing 

trade with non-parties; 

2. To monitor closely the party’s progress with regard to the implementation of its 

obligations under the Montreal Protocol; 

 XXIII/27: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the 

Russian Federation 

Noting that the Russian Federation reported the export of 70.2 metric tonnes of Annex C, 

group I, controlled substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) in 2009 to a State classified as not 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol that was also a State not party to the 

Copenhagen Amendment or the Beijing Amendment to the Protocol in that year, which places the 

Russian Federation in non-compliance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Protocol prohibiting 

trade with any State not party to the Protocol, 

1. That no further action is necessary in view of the party’s implementation of regulatory 

and administrative measures to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the Protocol governing 

trade with non-parties; 

2. To monitor closely the party’s progress with regard to the implementation of its 

obligations under the Montreal Protocol; 

 XXIII/28: Request by Tajikistan for the revision of its baseline 

data 

Noting that Tajikistan has submitted a request for the revision of its consumption data for the 

Annex C, group I, controlled substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) for the baseline year 1989 from 

6.0 ODP-tonnes to 18.7 ODP-tonnes, 

Noting also that decision XV/19 sets out the methodology for the submission and review of 

requests for the revision of baseline data, 

Noting with appreciation the efforts by Tajikistan to fulfil the information requirements of 

decision XV/19, in particular its efforts to verify the accuracy of its proposed new baseline data 

through a national survey of hydrochlorofluorocarbon use carried out with the assistance of the 

United Nations Development Programme and funding from the Global Environment Facility, 

1. That Tajikistan has presented sufficient information, in accordance with decision 

XV/19, to justify its request for the revision of its baseline consumption data for 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons; 

2. To revise the baseline consumption data of Tajikistan for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for 

the year 1989 from 6.0 ODP-tonnes to 18.7 ODP-tonnes; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

50

 XXIII/29: Requests for the revision of baseline data by Barbados, 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, 

Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Palau, Solomon 

Islands, Swaziland, Togo, Tonga, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe 

Noting that, in accordance with decision XIII/15, by which the Thirteenth Meeting of the 

Parties decided that parties requesting the revision of reported baseline data should present such 

requests to the Implementation Committee, which in turn would work with the Secretariat and the 

Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol to 

confirm the justification for the changes and present them to the Meeting of the Parties for approval, 

Noting also that decision XV/19 sets out the methodology for the submission of such requests, 

1. That Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, Lao People’s 

Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Palau, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Togo, Tonga, Vanuatu and 

Zimbabwe have presented sufficient information, in accordance with decision XV/19, to justify their 

requests for the revision of their consumption data for the year 2009 for hydrochlorofluorocarbons, 

which is part of the baseline for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5; 

2. To approve the requests of the parties listed in the preceding paragraph and to revise 

their baseline hydrochlorofluorocarbon consumption data for the year 2009 as indicated in the 

following table: 

Party 

Previous data New data 

Metric tonnes ODP-tonnes Metric tonnes ODP-tonnes 

Barbados 82.68 4.5 91.43 5.1 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 82.73 6.0 77.96 5.8

Brunei Darussalam 82.2 4.5 96.69 5.3 

Guyana 16.822 0.9 19.271 1.1 

Lao People’s Democratic Republic 22.03 1.2 39.09 2.1 

Lesotho 187.0 10.3 68.271 3.8 

Palau 2.04 0.1 2.56 0.1 

Solomon Islands 28.28 1.6 29.09 1.6 

Swaziland 99.9 9.2 103.72 9.5

Togo 372.89 20.5 350 19.3 

Tonga 0.01 0.0 2.43 0.1 

Vanuatu 1.46 0.1 1.89 0.1 

Zimbabwe 225 12.4 303.47 17.1 

 XXIII/30: Decimal places to be used by the Secretariat in 

analysing and presenting hydrochlorofluorocarbon data for 2011 

and later years 

Recognizing that for the past several years the Secretariat has been following the informal 

guidance set out in the report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties 7

 to round its data reported to the 

parties to one decimal place, 

Acknowledging the low ozone-depletion potential of many Annex C, group I, controlled 

substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), 

 

7 UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

51

Taking into consideration the small quantities of hydrochlorofluorocarbons used by a 

significant number of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, 

Understanding that, as a result of the low ozone-depletion potential of 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, rounding to one decimal place could result in the continued use of a 

substantial amount of those substances, 

Wishing to ensure that any change in the number of decimal places used to calculate baselines, 

consumption and production is forward looking and does not cause changes in previously submitted 

data, 

To direct the Secretariat to use two decimal places when presenting and analysing for 

compliance hydrochlorofluorocarbon baselines established after the Twenty-Third Meeting of the 

Parties and annual hydrochlorofluorocarbon data reported under Article 7 for 2011 and later years;

 XXIII/31: Status of the establishment of licensing systems under 

Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol 

Noting that paragraph 3 of Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol requires each party, within 

three months of the date of introducing its system for licensing the import and export of new, used, 

recycled and reclaimed controlled substances in Annexes A, B, C and E of the Protocol, to report to 

the Secretariat on the establishment and operation of that system, 

Noting with appreciation that 182 of the 185 parties to the Montreal Amendment to the 

Protocol have established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances as 

required by the Amendment and that 174 of those parties have provided disaggregated information on 

their licensing systems detailing which annexes and groups of substances under the Montreal Protocol 

are subject to those systems, 

Noting also with appreciation that 10 parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the 

Montreal Amendment have also established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting 

substances and that eight of those parties have provided disaggregated information on their licensing 

systems, 

Recognizing that licensing systems provide for the monitoring of imports and exports of 

ozone-depleting substances, prevent illegal trade and enable data collection,

Recognizing also that the successful phase-out of most ozone-depleting substances by parties 

is largely attributable to the establishment and implementation of licensing systems to control the 

import and export of ozone-depleting substances, 

1. To request Bolivia, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Dominica, Ecuador, Ghana, 

the Holy See, Tajikistan and Thailand, which are parties to the Montreal Amendment, and Guinea and 

Papua New Guinea, which are non-parties to the Montreal Amendment, none of which have yet 

provided disaggregated information on their licensing systems, to submit such information to the 

Secretariat as a matter of urgency, and no later than 31 March 2012, for consideration by the 

Committee at its forty-eighth meeting; 

2. To urge Ethiopia, San Marino and Timor-Leste to complete the establishment and 

operation of licensing systems as soon as possible and to report to the Secretariat thereon no later than 

31 March 2012; 

3. To encourage Botswana, which is non-party to the Montreal Amendment to the 

Protocol and has not yet established a licensing system, to ratify the Amendment and to establish a 

licensing system to control imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances; 

4. To urge Chad, Comoros, the Gambia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Solomon 

Islands, Sudan and Tonga, which operate licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances that do not 

include export controls, to ensure that they are structured in accordance with Article 4B of the 

Protocol and that they provide for the licensing of exports and to report there on to the Secretariat; 

5. To urge Honduras and Togo, whose licensing systems do not regulate substances in 

Annex C, Group I (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), to ensure that those systems include import and export 

controls for the above-mentioned substances and to report thereon to the Secretariat; 

6. 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; 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

52

 XIII/32: Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol 

To convene the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Geneva, 

Switzerland, from 12 to 16 November 2012 unless other appropriate arrangements are made by the 

Secretariat in consultation with the Bureau; 

 XIII/33: Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol 

To convene the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol back to back 

with the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention. 

 Comments made at the time of adoption of decisions 

210. Following the adoption of the decisions by the Twenty-Third Meeting of the Parties, several 

representatives made comments in connection with the 2012–2014 replenishment of the Multilateral 

Fund. All the representatives who spoke emphasized that the negotiations had been very difficult, 

applauded the efforts of those who had facilitated the negotiations, thanked the other parties for their 

flexibility and willingness to compromise, and said that they were pleased that in keeping with the 

traditions of the Protocol consensus had been reached on the matter. 

211. The representative of the United States, acknowledging the challenges faced by parties 

operating under paragraph one of Article 5 of the Protocol in meeting their 2013 and 2015 phase-out 

targets, pointed out that developed countries faced serious economic challenges. Those challenges 

notwithstanding, he said, his Government was committed to ensuring adequate replenishment funding, 

and pledged to work with all parties to make the Protocol work. 

212. The representative of China expressed concern that the amount of the replenishment, the 

lowest to date, extended what had become a trend of shrinking replenishments and might be 

insufficient to support the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs. While not prepared to assert that it would 

lead to non-compliance, he suggested that there was a clear link between the risk of non-compliance 

and the amount of the replenishment and said that he hoped that donor countries would pay close 

attention in the future to the challenges involved in HCFC phase-out and show greater flexibility and 

support. 

213. The representative of Canada emphasized the positive aspects of the outcome, noting that the 

parties had succeeded in reaching consensus in a difficult global context. He expressed confidence 

that, as in the past, the parties would continue to work together to ensure compliance. 

214. The representative of Brazil spoke of his concern that the difficulty of the negotiations might 

have left parties operating under paragraph one of Article 5 with doubts about funding levels, which 

were not in line with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s recommendations on the 

matter. He said that there were many challenges ahead and that it was necessary to fund current 

obligations sufficiently before extending the scope of the Protocol to include new obligations. He 

urged the parties to focus on the Protocol’s mandate so that the level of compliance action was 

consistent with the level of support provided. 

215. Echoing the views of China and Brazil the representative of India called upon developed 

countries to demonstrate through action their appreciation for the commitment made by the developing 

world. 

216. The representative of Germany said that, owing to the effect of national regulations, and as he 

had pointed out during the deliberations of the replenishment contact group, his country’s consent to 

the decision on replenishment of the Multilateral Fund was contingent on the approval by Germany’s 

parliament of the country’s 2012 federal budget. He said that although that approval had not yet been 

secured he hoped that it would be in the very near future. 

217. The representative of Austria said that his country recognized the replenishment decision as a 

good compromise that would help to achieve the objectives of the Protocol and therefore did not wish 

to stand in the way of consensus on the replenishment. That notwithstanding, he was constrained to 

report that his Government’s budget for 2012 had already been adopted and did not include provision 

for Austria’s increased contribution under the replenishment decision. Austria would make its utmost 

efforts to comply with the replenishment decision but was not currently in a position to secure the 

payment of its share of the replenishment. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

53

 XI. Adoption of the report of the ninth meeting of the Conference of 

the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Twenty-Third 

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

218. The present report was adopted on Friday, 25 November 2011, on the basis of the draft report 

that had been circulated. 

 XII. Closure of the meeting 

219. Following the customary exchange of courtesies, the meeting was declared closed at 

11.20 p.m. on Friday, 25 November 2011. 
UNEP/

54

Annex I 

Trust fund for the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer: approved 2011 and 2012 and proposed 2013 and 2014 budgets (in United States dollars

 w/m 2011 w/m 2012 w/m 10 Project personnel component 

1100 Project personnel 

 1101 Executive Secretary (D-2) (shared 

with the Montreal Protocol (MP)) 

6 142 811 6 142 811 6 

 1104 Scientific Affairs Officer (P-5) 

(shared with MP) 

6 106 925 6 106 925 6 

 1105 Administrative Officer (P-5) (paid 

by UNEP) 

 0 0 

 1107 Programme Officer 

(Communication and Information) (P-3) 

12 132 306 12 140 306 12 

 1199 Subtotal 382 042 390 042  1300 Administrative support 

 1301 Administrative Assistant (G-7) 

(Shared with MP) 

6 23 220 6 23 917 6 

 1303 Programme Assistant (G-6) 12 25 488 25 488  1304 Programme Assistant (G-6) (shared 

with MP) 

6 19 931 6 20 529 6 

 1305 Information Assistant (G-6) 

(Shared with MP) 

6 18 482 6 19 036 6 

 1310 Bilingual Senior Secretary (G-6) 12 25 367 12 25 367 12 

 1322 Preparatory and parties meeting 

(shared with MP every 3 years, it applies to 2011 and 2014) 

210 000 0 

 1324 Meetings of the Bureau 20 000 0 

 1326 Promotion of activities for the 

protection of the Ozone Layer 

10 000 10 000 

 1327 Meeting of the Ozone Research 

Managers 

34 027 0 

 1399 Subtotal 386 515 124 337 
UNEP/

 w/m 2011 w/m 2012 w/m  1600 Travel on official business  1601 Staff travel on official business 30 000 30 000  1699 Subtotal 30 000 30 000 1999 Component total 798 557 544 379 

3300 Participation costs of developing countries 

 3302 Preparatory and parties meetings 0 0  3304 Bureau meetings 20 000 0  3307 Meeting of Ozone Research 

Managers 

 175 000 0 

 3399 Subtotal 195 000 0 3999 Component total 195 000 0 40 Equipment and premises component 

4100 Expendable equipment (items under $1 500)  4101 Miscellaneous expendables (shared 

with MP) 

9 000 8 000 

4199 Subtotal 9 000 8 000 4200 Non-expendable equipment 

 4201 Personal computers and accessories 0 0  4202 Portable computers 5 000 5 000  4203 Other office equipment (server, 

fax, scanner, furniture, etc.) 

5 000 5 000 

 4204 Photocopiers 0 0 

 4205 Paperless equipment and 

peripherals 

0 5 000 

4299 Subtotal 10 000 15 000 4300 Premises 

4301 

Rental of office premises (shared with MP) 

17 500 17 500 

 4399 Subtotal 17 500 17 500 

4999 Component total 36 500 40 500 50 Miscellaneous component 

5100 Operation and maintenance of equipment 

 5101 Maintenance of equipment and 

other (shared with MP) 

10 000 7 500 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

56

 w/m 2011 w/m 2012 w/m  5199 Subtotal 10 000 7 500 

5200 Reporting costs 

5201 Reporting 7 500 7 500 

5202 

Reporting (Ozone Research Managers meeting report) 

15 000 0 

 5299 Subtotal 22 500 7 500 

5300 Sundry 

5301 Communications 25 000 20 000 5302 

Freight charges (documents) 20 000 15 000 

5304 

Others (Ozone layer protection public awareness campaign) 

5 000 5 000 

 5399 Subtotal 50 000 40 000  5400 Hospitality  5401 Hospitality 10 000 0 

5499 Subtotal 10 000 0 

5999 Component total 92 500 55 000 99 Total direct project cost 1 122 557 639 879  Programme support costs (13%) 145 932 83 184  Grand total (inclusive of programme 1 268 489 723 063 

support costs) 

 Drawdown from Trust Fund balance* 665 489 120 063  Contribution to be paid by the parties 603 000 603 000 
UNEP/

Explanatory notes for the approved 2012, 2013 and 2014 budgets of the Trust Fund for Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer 

Budget line Comment

Personnel component 1101, 1104 and 1107 1105 

Indicative Professional salary costs applicable to the relevant duty stations have been used for the bproposals. Where information on actual staff costs is available, however, the figures have been adjaccordingly. Unspent commitments normally revert to the Vienna Convention Trust Fund. The post of Administrative Officer continues to be paid from the 13 per cent programme support cactual expenditures. 

Administrative support/personnel 1301–1310 

Standard General Service salary costs applicable to the Nairobi duty station have been used for the proposals. 

Administrative support/conference services 1322, 1324, 1326, 1327 

Necessary funds may be transferred from the conference servicing budget lines should such serviceto be rendered, either by individual consultancies or under corporate contracts. The current conference servicing costs have been based on the following reasons and assumptions1322: The conferencing costs of the ninth and tenth meetings of the Conference of the Parties to thConvention are being shared with the Twenty-Third and Twenty-Sixth Meetings of the Parties to th

Protocol as the meetings will be held jointly in 2011 and 2014; 1324: Two Bureau meetings are scheduled for 2011 and 2014. The first meeting in the year is to be back with the Ozone Research Managers’ meeting and the second, back to back with the meeting oConference of the Parties. The meetings have provision for interpretation and document translation appropriate languages based on the membership of the Bureau; 1326: A minimum amount is proposed for each year to cover activities in connection with the celeInternational Day for the Protection of the Ozone Layer; 1327: A small increase is included to cover conference costs related to the organization of the eighOzone Research Managers’ meetings, in 2011 and 2014. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

58

Travel on official business 1601 

The budgets include travel of Secretariat officers in connection with the organization of the Ozone Managers’ meetings and the meetings of the Conference of the Parties, in addition to travel related of support to network and capacity-building meetings. 

3302 The participation of representatives of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in the vario

Convention meetings is assumed at $5,000 per representative per meeting taking into account not mperson’s travel costs per country, using the most appropriate and advantageous economy-class fare Nations daily subsistence allowances. Considering that the meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention is normallwith the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, the participation costs are borne by the MProtocol. 

3304 The participation costs are based on two Bureau meetings respectively in 2011 and 2014 for four p

from developing countries or countries with economies in transition, being held back to back with Research Managers’ meeting and the meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 

3307 One Ozone Research Managers’ meeting was held in May 2011. The next meeting will be held in 

Funding has been reserved for participation by 35 experts from qualifying developing countries thanational reports. 

4201–4205 The Secretariat is maintaining its electronic data processing systems to make the documentation of 

and the Convention available electronically to the parties. This requires periodic procurement of neperipherals and software licenses, and also updating of the existing computer servers. A minimum provision has been made to enable the Secretariat to replace some equipment each yea

5100–5400 Provisions under these budget lines contain minimal increase based on inflation rates recommende

United Nations. 
UNEP/

Annex II 

Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer 

Scale of contributions by the parties for 2012–2014 based on the United Nations scale of assessments (General Assembly resolution 64/248 of 24 December 2009 with a maximum assessment rate of 22 per cent) (in United States dollars) 

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 contributions 

by parties 

2013 con

by p

1 Afghanistan 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 2 Albania 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 3 Algeria 0.128 0.128 0.128 771 4 Andorra 0.007 0.000 0.000 0 5 Angola 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 6 Antigua and Barbuda 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 7 Argentina 0.287 0.287 0.287 1 728 8 Armenia 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 9 Australia 1.933 1.933 1.930 11 637 

10 Austria 0.851 0.851 0.850 5 123 11 Azerbaijan 0.015 0.000 0.000 0 12 Bahamas 0.018 0.000 0.000 0 13 Bahrain 0.039 0.000 0.000 0 14 Bangladesh 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 15 Barbados 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 16 Belarus 0.042 0.000 0.000 0 17 Belgium 1.075 1.075 1.073 6 472 18 Belize 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 19 Benin 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 20 Bhutan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

60

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 contributions 

by parties 

2013 con

by p

21 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.007 0.000 0.000 0 22 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.014 0.000 0.000 0 23 Botswana 0.018 0.000 0.000 0 24 Brazil 1.611 1.611 1.608 9 698 25 Brunei Darussalam 0.028 0.000 0.000 0 26 Bulgaria 0.038 0.000 0.000 0 27 Burkina Faso 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 28 Burundi 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 29 Cambodia 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 30 Cameroon 0.011 0.000 0.000 0 31 Canada 3.207 3.207 3.202 19 306 32 Cape Verde 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 33 Central African Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 34 Chad 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 35 Chile 0.236 0.236 0.236 1 421 36 China 3.189 3.189 3.184 19 198 37 Colombia 0.144 0.144 0.144 867 38 Comoros 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 39 Congo 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 40 Cook Islands - 0.000 0.000 0 41 Costa Rica 0.034 0.000 0.000 0 42 Côte d'Ivoire 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 43 Croatia 0.097 0.000 0.000 0 44 Cuba 0.071 0.000 0.000 0 45 Cyprus 0.046 0.000 0.000 0 46 Czech Republic 0.349 0.349 0.348 2 101 47 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 0.007 0.000 0.000 0 
UNEP/

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 contributions 

by parties 

2013 con

by p

48 Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 49 Denmark 0.736 0.736 0.735 4 431 50 Djibouti 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 51 Dominica 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 52 Dominican Republic 0.042 0.000 0.000 0 53 Ecuador 0.040 0.000 0.000 0 54 Egypt 0.094 0.000 0.000 0 55 El Salvador 0.019 0.000 0.000 0 56 Equatorial Guinea 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 57 Eritrea 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 58 Estonia 0.040 0.000 0.000 0 59 Ethiopia 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 60 European Union 2.500 2.500 2.496 15 050 61 Fiji 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 62 Finland 0.566 0.566 0.565 3 407 63 France 6.123 6.123 6.113 36 861 64 Gabon 0.014 0.000 0.000 0 65 Gambia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 66 Georgia 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 67 Germany 8.018 8.018 8.005 48 269 68 Ghana 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 69 Greece 0.691 0.691 0.690 4 160 70 Grenada 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 71 Guatemala 0.028 0.000 0.000 0 72 Guinea 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 73 Guinea-Bissau 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

62

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 contributions 

by parties 

2013 con

by p

74 Guyana 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 75 Haiti 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 76 Holy See8 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 77 Honduras 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 78 Hungary 0.291 0.291 0.291 1 752 79 Iceland 0.042 0.000 0.000 0 80 India 0.534 0.534 0.533 3 215 81 Indonesia 0.238 0.238 0.238 1 433 82 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.233 0.233 0.233 1 403 83 Iraq 0.020 0.000 0.000 0 84 Ireland 0.498 0.498 0.497 2 998 85 Israel 0.384 0.384 0.383 2 312 86 Italy 4.999 4.999 4.991 30 094 87 Jamaica 0.014 0.000 0.000 0 88 Japan 12.530 12.530 12.509 75 431 89 Jordan 0.014 0.000 0.000 0 90 Kazakhstan 0.076 0.000 0.000 0 91 Kenya 0.012 0.000 0.000 0 92 Kiribati 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 93 Kuwait 0.263 0.263 0.263 1 583 94 Kyrgyzstan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 95 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 96 Latvia 0.038 0.000 0.000 0 97 Lebanon 0.033 0.000 0.000 0 98 Lesotho 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 

8 Based on the notional assessment rate of 0.001 per cent as stipulated in General Assembly resolution 64/248 of 24 December 2009. 
UNEP/

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 contributions 

by parties 

2013 con

by p

99 Liberia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 

100 Libya 0.129 0.129 0.129 777 101 Liechtenstein 0.009 0.000 0.000 0 102 Lithuania 0.065 0.000 0.000 0 103 Luxembourg 0.090 0.000 0.000 0 104 Madagascar 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 105 Malawi 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 106 Malaysia 0.253 0.253 0.253 1 523 107 Maldives 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 108 Mali 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 109 Malta 0.017 0.000 0.000 0 110 Marshall Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 111 Mauritania 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 112 Mauritius 0.011 0.000 0.000 0 113 Mexico 2.356 2.356 2.352 14 183 114 Micronesia (Federated States of) 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 115 Monaco 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 116 Mongolia 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 117 Montenegro 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 118 Morocco 0.058 0.000 0.000 0 119 Mozambique 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 120 Myanmar 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 121 Namibia 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 122 Nauru 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 123 Nepal 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 124 Netherlands 1.855 1.855 1.852 11 167 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

64

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 contributions 

by parties 

2013 con

by p

125 New Zealand 0.273 0.273 0.273 1 643 126 Nicaragua 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 127 Niger 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 128 Nigeria 0.078 0.000 0.000 0 129 Niue - 0.000 0.000 0 130 Norway 0.871 0.871 0.870 5 243 131 Oman 0.086 0.000 0.000 0 132 Pakistan 0.082 0.000 0.000 0 133 Palau 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 134 Panama 0.022 0.000 0.000 0 135 Papua New Guinea 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 136 Paraguay 0.007 0.000 0.000 0 137 Peru 0.090 0.000 0.000 0 138 Philippines 0.090 0.000 0.000 0 139 Poland 0.828 0.828 0.827 4 985 140 Portugal 0.511 0.511 0.510 3 076 141 Qatar 0.135 0.135 0.135 813 142 Republic of Korea 2.260 2.260 2.256 13 605 143 Republic of Moldova 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 144 Romania 0.177 0.177 0.177 1 066 145 Russian Federation 1.602 1.602 1.599 9 644 146 Rwanda 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 147 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 148 Saint Lucia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 149 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 150 Samoa 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 
UNEP/

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 contributions 

by parties 

2013 con

by p

151 San Marino 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 152 Sao Tome and Principe 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 153 Saudi Arabia 0.830 0.830 0.829 4 997 154 Senegal 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 155 Serbia 0.037 0.000 0.000 0 156 Seychelles 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 157 Sierra Leone 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 158 Singapore 0.335 0.335 0.334 2 017 159 Slovakia 0.142 0.142 0.142 855 160 Slovenia 0.103 0.103 0.103 620 161 Solomon Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 162 Somalia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 163 South Africa 0.385 0.385 0.384 2 318 164 Spain 3.177 3.177 3.172 19 126 165 Sri Lanka 0.019 0.000 0.000 0 166 Sudan 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 167 Suriname 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 168 Swaziland 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 169 Sweden 1.064 1.064 1.062 6 405 170 Switzerland 1.130 1.130 1.128 6 803 171 Syrian Arab Republic 0.025 0.000 0.000 0 172 Tajikistan 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 173 Thailand 0.209 0.209 0.209 1 258 174 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.007 0.000 0.000 0 175 Timor-Leste 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 176 Togo 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 177 Tonga 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

66

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 contributions 

by parties 

2013 con

by p

178 Trinidad and Tobago 0.044 0.000 0.000 0 179 Tunisia 0.030 0.000 0.000 0 180 Turkey 0.617 0.617 0.616 3 714 181 Turkmenistan 0.026 0.000 0.000 0 182 Tuvalu 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 183 Uganda 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 184 Ukraine 0.087 0.000 0.000 0 185 United Arab Emirates 0.391 0.391 0.390 2 354 186 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and 

Northern  Ireland 6.604 6.604 6.593 39 757 

187 United Republic of Tanzania 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 188 United States of America 22.000 22.000 21.964 132 441 189 Uruguay 0.027 0.000 0.000 0 190 Uzbekistan 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 191 Vanuatu 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 192 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 0.314 0.314 0.313 1 890 193 Viet Nam 0.033 0.000 0.000 0 194 Yemen 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 195 Zambia 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 196 Zimbabwe 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 

Total 102.501 100.165 100.000 603 000 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

Annex III 

Contributions by parties to the eighth replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (2012, 20

(replenishment at US$ 450 million, including US$ 400 million from new contributions) 

No. Parties 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012

Adjusted 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments 

with no party 

contributing 

more than 22%

Annual 

contributions 

(in United 

States dollars) 

for years 2012, 

2013 and 2014

Average 

inflation rate 

for the period 

2009–2011 

Qualifying for 

FERM Use 

Yes=1 No=0

FERM Users

currencies rate

of exchange

1 Andorra 0.007 0.008929886 11 906.51 2 Australia 1.933 2.465924145 3 287 898.86 2.56% 1 0.963 Austria 0.851 1.085618959 1 447 491.95 1.53% 1 0.7204 Azerbaijan 0.015 0.019135469 25 513.96 5.82% 1 0.7955 Belarus 0.042 0.053579314 71 439.09 11.21% 0 6 Belgium 1.075 1.371375301 1 828 500.40 1.72% 1 0.7207 Bulgaria 0.038 0.048476522 64 635.36 3.42% 1 1.4088 Canada 3.207 4.091163338 5 454 884.45 1.43% 1 0.9809 Cyprus 0.046 0.058682106 78 242.81 2.21% 1 0.72010 Czech Republic 0.349 0.445218586 593 624.78 1.52% 1 17.711 Denmark 0.736 0.938913694 1 251 884.93 1.87% 1 5.36912 Estonia 0.040 0.051027918 68 037.22 2.50% 1 0.72013 Finland 0.566 0.722045042 962 726.72 2.10% 1 0.72014 France 6.123 7.811098572 10 414 798.10 1.33% 1 0.72015 Germany 8.018 10.228546195 13 638 061.59 1.19% 1 0.72016 Greece 0.691 0.881507286 1 175 343.05 2.86% 1 0.720
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

68

No. Parties 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

Adjusted 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments 

with no party 

contributing 

more than 22% 

Annual 

contributions 

(in United 

States dollars) 

for years 2012, 

2013 and 2014 

Average 

inflation rate 

for the period 

2009–2011 

Qualifying for 

FERM Use 

Yes=1 No=0 

FERM Users

currencies rate

of exchange 

17 Holy See9 0.001 0.001275698 1 700.93 18 Hungary 0.291 0.371228105 494 970.81 4.38% 1 195.20819 Iceland 0.042 0.053579314 71 439.09 6.67% 1 115.220 Ireland 0.498 0.635297581 847 063.44 -0.91% 1 0.72021 Israel 0.384 0.489868014 653 157.35 3.02% 1 3.522 Italy 4.999 6.377214072 8 502 952.10 1.45% 1 0.72023 Japan 12.530 15.984495363 21 312 660.48 -0.64% 1 81.9124 Latvia 0.038 0.048476522 64 635.36 1.69% 1 0.50925 Liechtenstein 0.009 0.011481282 15 308.38 1 0.91326 Lithuania 0.065 0.082920367 110 560.49 2.92% 1 2.48627 Luxembourg 0.090 0.114812816 153 083.75 2.04% 1 0.72028 Malta 0.017 0.021686865 28 915.82 2.31% 1 0.72029 Monaco 0.003 0.003827094 5 102.79 1 0.72030 Netherlands 1.855 2.366419705 3 155 226.27 1.38% 1 0.72031 New Zealand 0.273 0.348265541 464 354.06 2.85% 1 1.28732 Norway 0.871 1.111132918 1 481 510.56 2.11% 1 5.6333 Poland 0.828 1.056277906 1 408 370.54 3.36% 1 2.85934 Portugal 0.511 0.651881654 869 175.54 0.95% 1 0.72035 Romania 0.177 0.225798538 301 064.72 5.94% 1 3.0236 Russian Federation 1.602 2.043668122 2 724 890.83 9.27% 1 28.861

9 Ibid. 
UNEP/

No. Parties 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

Adjusted 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments 

with no party 

contributing 

more than 22% 

Annual 

contributions 

(in United 

States dollars) 

for years 2012, 

2013 and 2014 

Average 

inflation rate 

for the period 

2009–2011 

Qualifying for 

FERM Use 

Yes=1 No=0 

FERM Users

currencies rate

of exchange 

37 San Marino 0.003 0.003827094 5 102.79 0.72038 Slovakia 0.142 0.181149109 241 532.15 1.67% 1 0.72039 Slovenia 0.103 0.131396889 175 195.85 1.62% 1 0.72040 Spain 3.177 4.052892400 5 403 856.53 1.47% 1 0.72041 Sweden 1.064 1.357342623 1 809 790.16 1.97% 1 6.42042 Switzerland 1.130 1.441538688 1 922 051.58 0.37% 1 0.91343 Tajikistan 0.002 0.002551396 3 401.86 8.95% 1 4.47644 Ukraine 0.087 0.110985722 147 980.96 11.48% 0 45 United Kingdom 6.604 8.424709288 11 232 945.72 3.22% 1 0.62246 United States of America 22.000 22.000000000 29 333 333.33 1.16% 1 47 Uzbekistan 0.010 0.012756980 17 009.31 11.68% 0 

 Total 83.143 100.000000000 133 333 333.33 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

70Annex IV 

Trust fund for the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer 

Approved 2011 and 2012 and proposed 2013 budgets (in United States dollars) 

w/m 2011 w/m 

10 Project personnel component 

1100 Project personnel 

1101 Executive Secretary (D-2) (shared with the 

Vienna Convention (VC)) 1 6 166 757 6 

 1102 Deputy Executive Secretary (D-1) 12 259 560 12 

 1103 Senior Legal Officer (P-5) 12 202 632 12  1104 Senior Scientific Affairs Officer (P-5) (shared with VC) 6 130 000 6  1105 Administrative Officer (P-5) (paid by UNEP) 0  1106 Database Manager (Information System and Technology (P-4) 12 150 115 12 

 1107 Programme Officer (Communication & Information (P-3) (paid from VC) 12 0 12 

 1108 Programme Officer (Monitoring and Compliance (P-4) 12 188 000 12 

 1199 Subtotal 1 097 064 

1200 Consultants 

1201 Assistance in data-reporting, analysis and 

promotion of the implementation of the Protocol 40 000 

1299 Subtotal 40 000 

1300 Administrative support 

 1301 Administrative Assistant (G-7) (shared with VC) 6 21 250 6  1302 Administrative Assistant (G-6) 12 27 000 12  1303 Programme Assistant (G-6) (paid from VC) 12 0 12  1304 Programme Assistant (Data) (G-6) (shared with VC) 6 17 573 6  1305 Information Assistant (Research) (G-6) (shared with VC) 6 16 295 6 
UNEP

w/m 2011 w/m 

 1306 Information Management Assistant/Documentation Clerk (G-6) 12 27 560 12 

 1307 Data Assistant (Computer Information Systems Assistant) (G-7) 12 42 174 12 

 1308 Administrative Assistant - Fund (G-7) (paid by UNEP) 12 0 12 

 1309 Team Assistant/Logistics Assistant (G-4) (paid by UNEP) 12 0 12 

 1310 Meetings Services Assistant/Bilingual Senior Secretary (G-6) (paid from VC) 12 0 12 

 1320 Temporary assistance 21 300 

 1321 Open-ended Working Group meetings 490 000 

1322 Preparatory and parties meetings (shared with VC 

every three years, applies to the Twenty-Third and Twenty-Sixth Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and the ninth and tenth meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention in 2011 and 2014) 

 350 000 

 1323 Assessment panel meetings 75 000 

 1324 Bureau meeting 20 000 

 1325 Implementation Committee meetings 111 200 

 1326 MP informal consultation meetings 10 000 

 1399 Subtotal 1 229 352 

1600 Travel on official business 

 1601 Staff travel on official business 210 000 

 1602 Conference Services staff travel on official business 15 000  1699 Subtotal 225 000 

1999 Component total 2 591 416 20 Contracts 

2300 Subcontracts 2

2301 70 000 

2399 Subtotal 70 000 

2999 Component total 70 000 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

72

w/m 2011 w/m 

30 Meeting/Participation component 

3300 Support for participation 

 3301 Assessment panel meetings 3 500 000 

 3302 

Preparatory and parties meetings (Montreal Protocol bears the cost of the participation of MP and VC delegates from A-5 countries at the joint 23rd MOP and 9th COP in 2011) 

350 000 

 3303 Open-ended Working Group meetings 300 000 

 3304 Bureau meeting 20 000 

 3305 Implementation Committee meetings 125 000 

 3306 Consultations in an informal meeting 10 000  3399 Subtotal 1 305 000 

3999 Component total 1 305 000 

40 Equipment and premises component 

4100 Expendable equipment (items under $1 500) 

 4101 Miscellaneous expendables (shared with VC) 22 000 

 4199 Subtotal 22 000 

4200 Non-expendable equipment 

 4201 Personal computers and accessories 20 000 

 4202 Portable computers 5 000 

 4203 Other office equipment (server, fax, scanner, furniture etc.) 20 000 

 4204 Photocopiers 5 000 

 4205 Equipment and peripherals for paperless conferences 0 

 4299 Subtotal 50 000 

 4300 Premises 

4301 Rental of office premises (shared with VC) 48 000 

 4399 Subtotal 48 000 4999 Component total 120 000 
UNEP

w/m 2011 w/m 

50 Miscellaneous component 

5100 Operation and maintenance of equipment 

 5101 Maintenance of equipment and others (shared with VC) 25 000  5199 Subtotal 25 000 

 5200 Reporting costs  5201 Reporting 35 000  5202 Reporting (assessment panels) 10 000 

 5203 Reporting (Protocol awareness) 5 000 

 5299 Subtotal 50 000 

 5300 Sundry  5301 Communications 36 000 

 5302 Freight charges 35 000 

 5303 Training 12 000 

 5304 Others (International Ozone Day) 10 000 

 5399 Subtotal 93 000  5400 Hospitality  5401 Hospitality 25 000 

 5499 Subtotal 25 000 

5999 Component total 193,000 

99 Total direct project cost 4 279 416 

Programme support costs (13%) 556 324 

 GRAND TOTAL (inclusive of programme support costs) 4 835 740 

Operating cash reserve exclusive of programme support costs5 0 

 Total budget 4 835 740 

 Drawdown6 558 807 

 Contribution from the parties 4 276 933 

1 By decision XXII/21, the parties requested the President of the Bureau of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties to cothe United Nations the Parties' request to find a way to extend the tenure of the current Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretarmeeting of the Open-ended Working Group, the President conveyed to the parties that he had received confirmation from the CheSecretary-General that the Executive Secretary's contract was being extended by two-years, until October 2013. There are no addiextension. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

74

2 In accordance with decision XXII/2, and under the steering panel created by that decision, the Secretariat entered into a cothe preparation of an evaluation of the financial mechanism. 3 Budget line covers participation of all TEAP experts to enable the timely completion of the work requested by the Parties4 As paperless meetings have been successful since 2008, there has been both a decrease and shift in the resources needed fSecretariat introduced line 4205 as a new budget line to ensure transparency in reporting of related expenditures in this area.5 The Secretariat is maintaining the operating cash reserve at 15 per cent of the annual budget in accordance with paragraph 15 per cent level has been reached, there is no need to allocate funds in this area from 2011 and beyond until such time as the partmeet the final expenditures under the Trust Fund. 6 Prior years' drawdown levels were set with a view to maintaining the level of contributions constant through 2011. A drawdesigned to keep contributions stable. 
UNEP

Explanatory notes for the approved 2012 and 2013 budgets of the Trust Fund for the Montreal ProtocDeplete the Ozone Layer

Budget line Comment 

Personnel component 1101–1108 1105 

Indicative Professional salary costs applicable to the relevant duty stations have been used for thproposals. Where information on actual staff costs is available, however, the figures have been a

accordingly. Unspent commitments normally revert to the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol. The post of Administrative Officer continues to be paid by UNEP from the 13 per cent programmcosts. 

Consultants – 1201 Assistance in data reporting, updating of publications, translation of essential features of the Ozo

Secretariat website and the maintenance of a fully interlinked digital system at the Secretariat wito be required. Funds under this line may be transferred to line 1100 to create or support short-teProfessional posts if necessary. 

Administrative support/personnel 1301- 1309 

Standard General Service salary costs applicable to the Nairobi duty station have been used for t2013 budget proposals. 

1310 Administrative support/Conference services – 1321–1326 

The post of Bilingual Secretary is funded from the Vienna Convention Trust Fund. Necessary funds may be transferred from the conference servicing budget lines (1321–1326) shoservices be required, either through individual consultancies or corporate contracts. The current conference servicing costs have been based on the following reasons and assumption1321: The budget proposed is for one meeting of the Open-ended Working Group to be held eac2012 and 2013 in Nairobi or at another United Nations venue, in the six official United Nations 1322: The Montreal Protocol budgets for 2011 and 2014 will be shared with the Vienna Convenbudgets for the ninth and tenth meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Conventi
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

76

Budget line Comment 

The budgeted amount is based on the estimated cost of holding the Meeting of the Parties in Nai2012 and 2013, in the six official United Nations languages. Any additional costs arising from hmeetings in a location other than Nairobi will be borne by the Governments hosting the meeting1323: The budget allocation in 2012 and 2013 will cover the costs of organizing annual meetingassessment panels and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s technical options comtogether with communication and other sundry costs related to the work of Panel members from developing countries and countries with economies in transition; 

 1324: One Bureau meeting is scheduled for each of the years 2012 and 2013, with provision for 

interpretation and document translation into the appropriate languages based on the membership Bureau; 1325: At least two Implementation Committee meetings of three days’ duration are scheduled fothe years 2012 and 2013, with interpretation and document translation as required, to be held bacwith the Open-ended Working Group meetings and the meetings of the parties in those years; 1326: At least one informal consultation meeting per year, expected to take place in Nairobi, is e

for 2012 and 2013 to facilitate the work of assisting the parties and promoting ratification of and compliance with the Montreal Protocol and its amendments. 

Travel on official business – 1601–1602 Travel on official business for 2012 and 2013 is being maintained at the 2011 level. Meetings/Participation component – 3300 3301 

Participation of representatives of developing countries The participation of representatives of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in the varProtocol meetings is budgeted at $5,000 per meeting per representative, taking into account no mone person’s travel costs per country, using the most appropriate and advantageous economy-claand United Nations daily subsistence allowances. The budget provision requested in 2012 for travel of members and experts of the assessment panthe technical options committees attending assessment panel meetings has been reduced from thlevels. Additional funds will be requested as required for the next assessment process. 
UNEP

Budget line Comment 

3302 3303 

In 2011 and 2014, the total participation costs based on some 80 participants attending the joint mof the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Meeting of the Parties to the MProtocol, will be borne fully by the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol. Participation costs are based on some 60 participants attending the Open-ended Working Group in both 2012 and 2013. 

3304 Participation costs are based on one Bureau meeting per year for four Bureau members from dev

countries or countries with economies in transition at each meeting. 

3305 The participation costs for the two Implementation Committee meetings per year are based on ei

members from developing countries and countries with economies in transition at each meeting representative each from three or four countries invited by the Implementation Committee at eacProvision has also been made for travel by the Implementation Committee President or Vice-Prefrom a country operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to attend three Executive Committee meyear. 

3306 Funds have been allocated to finance the participation of two participants from developing count

countries with economies in transition in informal consultations in 2012 and 2013 on critical issurelating to the Montreal Protocol. It is expected that these consultations will be held in Nairobi. 

Equipment and premises component Expendable equipment – 4101 

The cost of miscellaneous expendables is being increased minimally in 2012 and 2013 to take ininflation. Resource use is being monitored constantly to maintain low expenditure levels. 

Non-expendable equipment – 4203 Additional funds for 2012 and 2013 have been allocated to provide for increased server capacity 

with the demands of paperless meetings and to enable the Secretariat to replace equipment as req

Premises (rent) – 4300 The allocation for rental of premises in 2012 and 2013 has been based on an increase in Nairobi 

rates imposed by the United Nations Controller. 

Miscellaneous component 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

78

Budget line Comment 

Operation and maintenance of equipment – 5101 

The provision for operation and maintenance of equipment is being increased minimally in 2012 to cover increased maintenance costs for constantly increasing server capacity and additional comrequirements for staff. 

Reporting costs (including editing, translation, duplication, publication and printing) – 5201–5203 

General reporting costs for the Secretariat are provided for under these lines. Line 5202 is reservreporting of assessment panels. A small amount is allocated in line 5203 for any editing, translatduplication, publication and printing related to Protocol awareness campaigns. 

Sundry – Communications – 5301 

Careful monitoring of telecommunications resources and the use of electronic mail instead of fac

communications enable the Secretariat to maintain a relatively low budget provision under this l

Training – 5303 The provision for training will be maintained to meet evolving training needs and to cater for tra

schemes introduced by the United Nations as a result of its continuing human resources reform pand guidelines for continuous training to encourage high performance delivery of staff. 

Others (International Ozone Day) – 5304 The Ozone Secretariat will continue to provide assistance to specific countries during 2012 and 2

assist in their preparations for the celebration of the International Day for the Preservation of the Layer. 
UNEP

Annex V 

Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on the Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Scale of contributions by the parties for 2012 and 2013 based on the United Nations scale of assessments (General Assembly resolution 64/248 of 24 December 2009 with a maximum assessment rate of 22 per cent) (in United States dollars) 

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Afghanistan 0.004 0.000 0.000 Albania 0.010 0.000 0.000 Algeria 0.128 0.128 0.128 Andorra 0.007 0.000 0.000 Angola 0.010 0.000 0.000 Antigua and Barbuda 0.002 0.000 0.000 Argentina 0.287 0.287 0.287 1Armenia 0.005 0.000 0.000 Australia 1.933 1.933 1.930 8Austria 0.851 0.851 0.850 3Azerbaijan 0.015 0.000 0.000 Bahamas 0.018 0.000 0.000 Bahrain 0.039 0.000 0.000 Bangladesh 0.010 0.000 0.000 Barbados 0.008 0.000 0.000 Belarus 0.042 0.000 0.000 Belgium 1.075 1.075 1.073 4Belize 0.001 0.000 0.000 Benin 0.003 0.000 0.000 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

80

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Bhutan 0.001 0.000 0.000 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.007 0.000 0.000 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.014 0.000 0.000 Botswana 0.018 0.000 0.000 Brazil 1.611 1.611 1.608 6Brunei Darussalam 0.028 0.000 0.000 Bulgaria 0.038 0.000 0.000 Burkina Faso 0.003 0.000 0.000 Burundi 0.001 0.000 0.000 Cambodia 0.003 0.000 0.000 Cameroon 0.011 0.000 0.000 Canada 3.207 3.207 3.202 13Cape Verde 0.001 0.000 0.000 Central African Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 Chad 0.002 0.000 0.000 Chile 0.236 0.236 0.236 1China 3.189 3.189 3.184 13Colombia 0.144 0.144 0.144 Comoros 0.001 0.000 0.000 Congo 0.003 0.000 0.000 Cook Islands - 0.000 0.000 Costa Rica 0.034 0.000 0.000 Côte d'Ivoire 0.010 0.000 0.000 Croatia 0.097 0.000 0.000 Cuba 0.071 0.000 0.000 
UNEP

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Cyprus 0.046 0.000 0.000 Czech Republic 0.349 0.349 0.348 1Democratic People's Republic of Korea 0.007 0.000 0.000 Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.003 0.000 0.000 Denmark 0.736 0.736 0.735 3Djibouti 0.001 0.000 0.000 Dominica 0.001 0.000 0.000 Dominican Republic 0.042 0.000 0.000 Ecuador 0.040 0.000 0.000 Egypt 0.094 0.000 0.000 El Salvador 0.019 0.000 0.000 Equatorial Guinea 0.008 0.000 0.000 Eritrea 0.001 0.000 0.000 Estonia 0.040 0.000 0.000 Ethiopia 0.008 0.000 0.000 European Union 2.500 2.500 2.496 10Fiji 0.004 0.000 0.000 Finland 0.566 0.566 0.565 2France 6.123 6.123 6.113 26Gabon 0.014 0.000 0.000 Gambia 0.001 0.000 0.000 Georgia 0.006 0.000 0.000 Germany 8.018 8.018 8.005 34Ghana 0.006 0.000 0.000 Greece 0.691 0.691 0.690 2Grenada 0.001 0.000 0.000 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

82

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Guatemala 0.028 0.000 0.000 Guinea 0.002 0.000 0.000 Guinea-Bissau 0.001 0.000 0.000 Guyana 0.001 0.000 0.000 Haiti 0.003 0.000 0.000 Holy See10 0.001 0.000 0.000 Honduras 0.008 0.000 0.000 Hungary 0.291 0.291 0.291 1Iceland 0.042 0.000 0.000 India 0.534 0.534 0.533 2Indonesia 0.238 0.238 0.238 1Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.233 0.233 0.233 Iraq 0.020 0.000 0.000 Ireland 0.498 0.498 0.497 2Israel 0.384 0.384 0.383 1Italy 4.999 4.999 4.991 21Jamaica 0.014 0.000 0.000 Japan 12.530 12.530 12.509 53Jordan 0.014 0.000 0.000 Kazakhstan 0.076 0.000 0.000 Kenya 0.012 0.000 0.000 Kiribati 0.001 0.000 0.000 Kuwait 0.263 0.263 0.263 1Kyrgyzstan 0.001 0.000 0.000 

10 Ibid. 
UNEP

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 Latvia 0.038 0.000 0.000 Lebanon 0.033 0.000 0.000 Lesotho 0.001 0.000 0.000 Liberia 0.001 0.000 0.000 Libya 0.129 0.129 0.129 Liechtenstein 0.009 0.000 0.000 Lithuania 0.065 0.000 0.000 Luxembourg 0.090 0.000 0.000 Madagascar 0.003 0.000 0.000 Malawi 0.001 0.000 0.000 Malaysia 0.253 0.253 0.253 1Maldives 0.001 0.000 0.000 Mali 0.003 0.000 0.000 Malta 0.017 0.000 0.000 Marshall Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 Mauritania 0.001 0.000 0.000 Mauritius 0.011 0.000 0.000 Mexico 2.356 2.356 2.352 10Micronesia (Federated State of) 0.001 0.000 0.000 Monaco 0.003 0.000 0.000 Mongolia 0.002 0.000 0.000 Montenegro 0.004 0.000 0.000 Morocco 0.058 0.000 0.000 Mozambique 0.003 0.000 0.000 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

84

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Myanmar 0.006 0.000 0.000 Namibia 0.008 0.000 0.000 Nauru 0.001 0.000 0.000 Nepal 0.006 0.000 0.000 Netherlands 1.855 1.855 1.852 7New Zealand 0.273 0.273 0.273 1Nicaragua 0.003 0.000 0.000 Niger 0.002 0.000 0.000 Nigeria 0.078 0.000 0.000 Niue - 0.000 0.000 Norway 0.871 0.871 0.870 3Oman 0.086 0.000 0.000 Pakistan 0.082 0.000 0.000 Palau 0.001 0.000 0.000 Panama 0.022 0.000 0.000 Papua New Guinea 0.002 0.000 0.000 Paraguay 0.007 0.000 0.000 Peru 0.090 0.000 0.000 Philippines 0.090 0.000 0.000 Poland 0.828 0.828 0.827 3Portugal 0.511 0.511 0.510 2Qatar 0.135 0.135 0.135 Republic of Korea 2.260 2.260 2.256 9Republic of Moldova 0.002 0.000 0.000 Romania 0.177 0.177 0.177 
UNEP

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Russian Federation 1.602 1.602 1.599 6Rwanda 0.001 0.000 0.000 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.001 0.000 0.000 Saint Lucia 0.001 0.000 0.000 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.001 0.000 0.000 Samoa 0.001 0.000 0.000 San Marino 0.003 0.000 0.000 Sao Tome and Principe 0.001 0.000 0.000 Saudi Arabia 0.830 0.830 0.829 3Senegal 0.006 0.000 0.000 Serbia 0.037 0.000 0.000 Seychelles 0.002 0.000 0.000 Sierra Leone 0.001 0.000 0.000 Singapore 0.335 0.335 0.334 1Slovakia 0.142 0.142 0.142 Slovenia 0.103 0.103 0.103 Solomon Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 Somalia 0.001 0.000 0.000 South Africa 0.385 0.385 0.384 1Spain 3.177 3.177 3.172 13Sri Lanka 0.019 0.000 0.000 Sudan 0.010 0.000 0.000 Suriname 0.003 0.000 0.000 Swaziland 0.003 0.000 0.000 Sweden 1.064 1.064 1.062 4
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

86

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Switzerland 1.130 1.130 1.128 4Syrian Arab Republic 0.025 0.000 0.000 Tajikistan 0.002 0.000 0.000 Thailand 0.209 0.209 0.209 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.007 0.000 0.000 Timor-Leste 0.001 0.000 0.000 Togo 0.001 0.000 0.000 Tonga 0.001 0.000 0.000 Trinidad and Tobago 0.044 0.000 0.000 Tunisia 0.030 0.000 0.000 Turkey 0.617 0.617 0.616 2Turkmenistan 0.026 0.000 0.000 Tuvalu 0.001 0.000 0.000 Uganda 0.006 0.000 0.000 Ukraine 0.087 0.000 0.000 United Arab Emirates 0.391 0.391 0.390 1United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 6.604 6.604 6.593 28United Republic of Tanzania 0.008 0.000 0.000 United States of America 22.000 22.000 21.964 93Uruguay 0.027 0.000 0.000 Uzbekistan 0.010 0.000 0.000 Vanuatu 0.001 0.000 0.000 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 0.314 0.314 0.313 1Viet Nam 0.033 0.000 0.000 Yemen 0.010 0.000 0.000 
UNEP

Party 

United Nations 

scale of 

assessments for 

2010–2012 

United Nations 

scale adjusted to 

exclude 

non-contributors 

Adjusted United 

Nations scale with 

22% maximum 

assessment rate 

considered 

2012 

Contributio

parties 

Zambia 0.004 0.000 0.000 Zimbabwe 0.003 0.000 0.000 

Total 102.501 100.165 100.000 4 27
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

88

Annex VI 

Summaries of presentations by members of the assessment panels 

and technical options committees11 during the preparatory segment 

 I. Supplemental report of the Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel replenishment task force 

1. Ms. Shiqiu Zhang, co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 

Replenishment Task Force (RTF), started the presentation and said that the total estimated funding 

requirement for the triennium 2012-2014 is likely to be in the range of US$ 460 to US$ 540 million. 

This amount was based on HPMPs approved through ExCom-64 and on amounts from six scenarios 

applied for not-yet-approved HPMPs (two HCFC reduction packages and three levels of funded phaseout), plus production closure funding that was assumed to take place in parallel. She mentioned that, 

for comparison, the funding range estimated in the May 2011 RTF report was US$ 390-477 million, 

which is approximately US$ 70 million lower. 

2. After the Replenishment Report had been published in May 2011 and had been introduced at 

the thirty first meeting of the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG), a Contact Group was set up at the 

OEWG to formulate additional requests for a supplementary study. The Contact Group agreed on a list 

of issues for further study. That list included a request for an update on baselines, an update on 

HPMPs approved at the sixty forth meeting of he Executive Committee, a study of reduction packages, 

a revised funding requirement for 2012-2014 and subsequent triennia, details on climate benefits, 

different funding scenarios for production closure, cost effectiveness aspects and considerations on 

low-GWP applications, the effect of inflation on Institutional Strengthening and the impact of zero and 

negative growth for supporting activities. The TEAP and its RTF performed the study 

August-September 2011 and submitted the supplement report to UNEP the beginning of October 

2011; a brief addendum was subsequently issued the beginning of November. 

3. Mr. Lambert Kuijpers continued the presentation and went back to the main points presented 

in the May 2011 report, which gave a funding range for 2012-2014 as US$ 390-477 million with 

indicative funding ranges for the two subsequent triennia. In this report production phase-out was 

assumed to occur in parallel with consumption phase-down (as in the 2008 study). In September 2011, 

an additional 21 HPMPs were approved at the sixty forth meeting of the Executive Committee in July 

2011 at a total cost of US$ 340 million, with 6 HPMPs approved for non-low volume consuming 

(LVC) countries including China. Parties had requested a study of the impact of funding options for 

swing plants (which produce about 18% of HCFC-22 produced in parties operating under paragraph 1 

of Article 5), as well as an investigation of moving production sector funding tranches to later years. 

The Task Force had investigated options for three triennia, including the phasing out of 10% of 

production in 2012-14 

4. On baseline data, Mr. Kuijpers said that, as of 1 September 2011, 86 Parties had submitted 

2010 data, 59 Parties had not, which included China and India. Of the 86 Parties, 14 Parties were nonLVCs, where 5 had increased consumption levels (as much as 20%) and 9 Parties had decreased 

consumption levels (as much as 20% less), compared to the year 2009. The Task Force had taken into 

account all new available data to refine the baseline estimates in the revised funding requirement 

calculations. Mr. Kuijpers then presented a table with the different funding elements for the period 

2011-2014 at a total of US$ 492.73 million, plus the costs for new yet to be approved HPMPs, plus 

production closure costs. He explained how the calculations were done to come to an estimate of the 

funding range for the triennium 2012-2014. He also mentioned the production closure costs that need 

to be brought into the total and said that together, these factors yield a funding estimate for 2012-14 as 

US$ 460-540 million, where the range for the funding estimate for 2012-14 without production 

amounts to US$ 276-315 million. 

5. The Task Force had done investigations on reduction packages. It noted that the foam 

percentage in the packages is relatively large, which would lead to “negative” consumption if the same 

package was used in estimates for subsequent triennia 

6. The (new) 55-20-25% package chosen was the basis for the estimates for the two subsequent 

triennia (in ODP tonnes). Parties requested examination of the impact of the HCFC reductions 

expressed in Mt CO2 eq. The baseline consumption equals 782 Mt CO2 eq./year, where the total LVC 

 11 The summaries in the present annex appear as submitted by the presenters, without formal editing. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

89

and non-LVC HPMP approvals to date represent a reduction of 49 Mt CO2 eq. per year. The complete 

Stage I HPMP contribution will be equivalent to a reduction of ~60 Mt CO2 eq./yr, which is less than 

10% of the baseline, because most phase-out is related to HCFC-141b, which contributes much less to 

GWP reductions than HCFC-22. 

7. Ms. Zhang continued the presentation on the estimated funding requirements for 2015-2017 

and 2018-2020, which were calculated on the basis of existing commitments, HPMPs, Institutional 

Strengthening, the funding of supporting activities, commitments of (new) HPMPs for LVCs and 

production closure costs, the latter of which contribute significantly to the total. For these triennia, 

new cost effectiveness values were used for Poly urethane foam, for the refrigeration and air 

conditioning subsector and for extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam. The Task Force estimates assumed 

that all non-LVCs can request stage II funding. 

8. She said that the indicative funding requirement for the triennium 2015-2017 amounts to US$ 

479 million for HPMPs, US$ 209 million for production closure plus about US$ 112 million for other 

elements, giving a total funding requirement: US$ 790 million. She said that the indicative funding 

requirement for the triennium 2018-2020 amounts to US$ 461 million for HPMPs, US$ 229 million 

for production closure plus about US$ 107 million for other elements, giving a total funding 

requirement of US$ 797 million. 

9. Mr. Kuijpers said that Parties had requested the investigation of several elements in the 

production closure costs, including the production costs for each consumption scenario, the 

examination of approaches for swing plants and the consideration of possible redirection of controlled 

HCFC production to feedstock production not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. He mentioned that 

swing plants in Article 5 countries other than China account for 18% of total Article 5 country HCFC 

production and that for the 2012-2014 triennium, swing plant funding for HCFC-22 phase-out is US$ 

17.3-21.1 million. In 2015-2017 and 2018-2020, swing plant funding for HCFC-22 phase-out is US 

$24 million and US $27 million, respectively. Mr. Kuijpers mentioned that HCFC-22 feedstock 

production in Article 5 countries has doubled every three years during the last decade. A continuing 

growth trend would offer the potential for diversion of current controlled use production to feedstock; 

however, country-level, plant-based technical information on the practicalities of successful diversion 

was not yet available. He then gave specific funding range values for five production scenarios. Parties 

had also requested the task force to study the funding amounts for Institutional Strengthening (IS) 

dependent on inflation percentages. Mr. Kuijpers said that an annual 3% inflation would increase the 

IS funding for 2012-14 by US$ 1.34 million, on a total of US$ 500 million, and for 2015-17 by US$ 

4.32 million, on a total of US$ 790 million. Parties had also asked the RTF to study the impact of 0% 

and -3% growth on funding for supporting activities. Mr. Kuijpers said that a -3% growth results in 

US$ 5 million less per triennium for supporting activities, where the normal case results in an increase 

of about US$ 6 million per triennium. 

10. Mr. Daniel Colbourne, member of the Task Force continued the presentation with information 

on foam and refrigeration and air conditioning cost effectiveness values. He noted that the cost 

effectiveness for polyurethane foam depended mainly s on chosen HCFC phase-out technology and 

size of the enterprise and the selection of technology is greatly influenced by the specific polyurethane 

market subsector and the size of the company to be converted 

11. He mentioned that the weighted average for rigid and integral skin polyurethane foam was 

updated from US$ 6.41/kg to US$ 6.11/kg and that XPS conversion costs and the related cost 

effectiveness values were updated from US$ 2.56/kg to US$ 4.85/kg. Mr. Colbourne said that the Task 

Force had not adjusted the cost effectiveness values taking into account economies-of-scale. 

Improvements over time in cost effectiveness are considered to be 5-50%, with an average of 20%. He 

noted that this stemmed from more trained personnel and lower refrigerant and component costs, 

where it is not possible to determine a precise time scale. He also mentioned that the dependence on 

HPMPs with greater than 10% reduction is difficult to quantify, that global changes are very important 

and that cost effectiveness values from approved projects cannot be directly applied. For refrigeration 

and AC, the capital and operating costs had been re-evaluated. Mr. Colbourne stated that the cost 

effectiveness values from the May 2011 report were adjusted downward on the basis of a revised cost 

analysis and detailed information from project proposals, resulting in an average value of US$ 8.8/kg, 

excluding funding increases for low-GWP refrigerants. 

12. Mr. Colbourne concluded with a number of summarizing comments. He stated that the 

spreadsheet analysis has been completely updated for three triennia and that the supplement report 

contained a separate chapter on production in view of the overall impact on the replenishment. In this 

context, several approaches are available for funding the production sector with significant differences 

in funding levels and timing. The production closure funding is up to 30% of total funding when 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

90

production phase-out is in parallel with consumption phase-out and the lowest replenishment levels 

result from the choice of a 10% reduction from the production baseline. Mr. Colbourne emphasised 

that moving tranches of production closure funding to future triennia beyond 2020 does not help to 

decrease the calculated “triennia funding imbalance”. He also said that approved Stage I HPMPs 

incorporate a substantial ‘front loading’ of funding for consumption phase-out and that costeffectiveness values used to calculate the second and third triennia, for stage II HPMPs, are assumed 

to be lower. He summarised the funding requirements again stating that all parameters together result 

in a funding of US$ 500 million (+/-8%) funding for the first 2012-2014, US$ 790 million for the 

second 2015-2017, and US$ 797 million for the third triennium 2018-2020. 

 II. Nominations for 2012 and 2013 for essential-use exemptions 

13. Mr. Ashley Woodcock, co-chair of the Medical Technical Options Committee, presented the 

committee’s recommendations on essential use nominations for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for 

2012 and 2013, which remain unchanged from those reported in TEAP’s May Report. He provided an 

update on a bilateral meeting between China and co-chairs of the Medical Technical Options 

Committee during the Open-Ended Working Group meeting. Discussions focussed on the importance 

to China of locally made CFC MDIs containing anti-cholinergics. He explained that the Medical 

Technical Options Committee was not requested to review its assessment of China’s essential use 

nomination, and that therefore, the panel maintains its original recommendation that CFCs for inhalers 

with anti-cholinergics are not considered essential in China because more than one alternative is 

available, and China’s own phase-out strategy is satisfied. At that meeting it was suggested that China 

could choose to allocate CFCs for this use within the total allowance approved by Parties. He 

concluded by congratulating China for approval of the first locally made CFC-free salbutamol MDI in 

China. He also congratulated the United States for approval of a CFC-free albuterol and ipratropium 

combination inhaler, which paves the way for a complete and successful transition in the United 

States. 

 III. Nominations for 2012 and 2013 critical-use exemptions 

14. The co-chairs of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC), Mr Mohamed 

Besri, Mr. Ian Porter, Ms Michelle Marcotte and Ms Marta Pizano provided a summary of findings of 

the final assessment of the Critical Use Nominations assessed during the 2011 round as set out in the 

final report of October 2011. 

15. Introducing the issue, Mr. Besri presented a summary of the Methyl Bromide consumption in 

A5 and non Article 5 countries. He reported that, in 1991, 45,000 t of methyl bromide have been 

consumed in non Article 5 Parties and for 2013, only 704 t have been requested for preplant soil uses. 

16. He explained that in 2011, three Parties, Australia, Canada and USA continue to use methyl 

bromide for preplant soil uses. He reported that Article 5 party consumption in 2010 was of 3,998 t, 

and this amount is due for phase out by 2015. This consumption was 25% of the total Article 5 party 

baseline of approximately 16,000 t. 

17. He said that overall, critical use nominations (CUNs) continue to fall from 2010 to 2013 for 

the remaining four nominating Parties. 

18. Regarding the available methyl bromide stocks, he said that Canada, Japan and USA have 

reported respectively 3.4 t, 6.3 t and 1,803 t. He explained also that MBTOC critical use 

recommendations did not take stocks into account. He concluded that stocks reported by USA in 2010 

are 2.6 times the 2013 US nomination of 692 t. 

19. He noted that the US withdrew the research nominations in October as the Party stated ‘it was 

now possible to conduct the program without a CUE’. 

20. Mr. Porter then presented an overview of nominations received for pre-plant soil use of methyl 

bromide in 2012 and 2013. Seven nominations remained unchanged from the interim 

recommendations. MBTOC sought further information on 5 nominations and the US requested further 

re-evaluation of two nominations. At its second meeting, MBTOC reassessed 6 of the 13 CUNs 

submitted for the 2013 round. Reassessment of the nominations from Australia and Canada were not 

required. 

21. The committee’s final recommendation was 563.463 t with 78.232 t not recommended. 

22. Of the reassessed nominations, four were accepted in full, and the committee noted that the 

Party stated this would be the last nomination for the four vegetable nominations. MBTOC maintained 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

91

the interim recommendation for the ornamentals sector as a number of alternatives were still 

considered effective for a portion of the nomination. 

23. MBTOC recommended a reduced amount for strawberry fruit with a majority of members 

agreeing that the further information provided by the Party for the strawberry fruit nomination in 

California did not demonstrate that technically and economically feasible alternatives were not 

available for specific soilborne pathogens, particularly for one region. MBTOC noted that the Party 

may wish to submit a supplementary bid next round if there is technical justification to show that all 

available methods of 1,3-D/Pic and Pic, with or without barrier films, are not effective for the 

circumstances of the nomination. He noted that a minority view was held on this assessment. 

24. Recently, Canada advised the Secretariat that it had issued a permit for 1.9 t of MB under the 

‘Emergency Use’ provisions of the Montreal Protocol. The Party stated that this was an unused 

quantity of the 2010 CUE amount approved for strawberry nurseries that was needed in early 2011. 

25. Ms. Marcotte, MBTOC Co-Chair, reported that in 2011, MBTOC Structures and Commodities 

(SC), reviewed six CUNs. Additionally, it reviewed three elements of the US research CUN, although 

this CUN was later withdrawn by the Party. Flour and cereal mills in Canada and the United States 

remain the largest CUNs, although these have decreased significantly year over year. Commodities for 

which Parties have requested MB include packaged rice for Australia, fresh chestnuts for Japan, plus 

dried fruits (including fresh dates) and walnuts for the US, and Southern dry-cured pork. 

26. MBTOC recommended the Canadian and US flour milling CUNs. Canada’s nomination of 

7.8 tonnes is a 29% reduction and the US nomination of 25.3 tonnes is a 66% reduction this year. 

MBTOC acknowledges the difficulties Parties have achieving effective fumigations in their large mills 

and under the cool temperatures observed during the usual fumigation times. Accordingly, MBTOC 

provided a special report with guidance about achieving greater efficacy with sulfuryl fluoride 

treatments. 

27. Australia and Japan have indicated to MBTOC that methyl bromide use for rice and fresh 

chestnuts will cease in 2014. Australia nominated 2.3 tonnes for rice to allow their rice processors time 

to continue sustainable adoption of alternatives. This was a 35% reduction. Japan nominated a 5% 

reduction to 3.3 tonnes for fresh chestnuts, allowing Japan time to continued logistical improvements 

and farmer training programs which MBTOC believes are important for the safe use of the alternative. 

At the Open Ended Working Group meeting in July, MBTOC reported it was unable to assess the US 

nomination for dry-cured pork. Later submission by the Party of information about the research and 

the timing of available data allowed us to recommend the CUN in MBTOC’s October report. There 

was however a minority view included in the MBTOC report. 

28. Marcotte also noted that Decision XVI/4 Annex 16 requires MBTOC to meet twice a year to 

review CUNs. In view of the on-going lack of funding of members, we request clarification from the 

Parties to acknowledge that meetings can take place electronically. MBTOC cannot hold face to face 

meetings unless A(5) and Non A(5) members are funded to attend. MBTOC discusses this matter 

more thoroughly in its report section on resourcing. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

92

Annex VII 

Draft decision XXIII/[ ]: Funding for hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

production facilities

Submission by India 

The Twenty-Third Meeting of the parties decides:

Recalling decision XIX/6, which states that funding through the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol shall be stable and sufficient to meet all agreed incremental 

costs to enable parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol to comply 

with the accelerated phase-out schedule for hydrochlorofluorocarbons for both the production and 

consumption sectors, 

Recognizing that there is limited time before the first hydrochlorofluorocarbon control 

measures for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 come into force with the freeze at the 

baseline level in 2013 and 10 per cent reduction from the baseline in 2015, 

Noting that parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 with hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

production facilities may be at risk of being in non-compliance with those obligations if adequate 

assistance is not provided through the Multilateral Fund, 

To confirm the intent of decision XIX/6, which is to provide stable and sufficient funding 

through the Multilateral Fund to meet all agreed incremental costs to enable parties operating under 

paragraph 1 of Article 5 to comply with the accelerated hydrochlorofluorocarbonphase-out schedule, 

including the production sector without any prejudice to swing plants; 

To urge the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to finalize as a priority matter the 

guidelines for the funding of hydrochlorofluorocarbon production facilities. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

93

Annex VIII 

Summary of presentation on the eighth meeting of the Ozone 

Research Managers of the Parties to the Vienna Convention 12

1. The 8th Ozone Research Managers (ORM) meeting was held in Geneva, Switzerland 

(2-4 May 2011) in accordance with decisions I/6 and III/8 of the Conference of the Parties. As in the 

past, this ORM report is highly complementary to the recent WMO-UNEP Scientific Assessments, but 

has a distinctly different purpose. Both the report and the assessments are required under the Vienna 

Convention and the Montreal Protocol. However, the Assessments enable the Parties to evaluate 

control measures under the Protocol and are communication devices between the research community 

(striving for better understanding) and decision makers (seeking informed action). The Assessments 

are neither policy recommendations nor research planning documents but provide input for both. The 

ORM reports, on the other hand, specifically address research and monitoring needs in light of 

scientific understanding from the assessments and make detailed recommendations to the Parties 

regarding international actions for improved research coordination and networking. 

2. After a review of the recommendations from the 7th ORM Meeting and of activities 

under the Vienna Convention Trust Fund, the 8th ORM meeting continued with a number of invited 

presentations on the state of the ozone layer and its interactions with climate change. Subsequent talks 

summarized international research and monitoring programs and international satellite programs and 

were followed by national and regional reports of ozone and UV research and monitoring activities. 

This suite of presentations provided the bases for recommendations in the four principal areas of 

research needs, systematic observations, data archiving, and capacity building. 

3. There are many questions that remain on the expected ozone recovery from the 

influence of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), especially with respect to the interactions between 

ozone depletion and climate change. Recent research reveals that ozone depletion has affected 

tropospheric climate and it is becoming clearer that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are altering the 

stratosphere, with a cooling of the upper stratosphere by GHGs expected to exceed 5K between the 

years 2000 and 2100. The ability to predict future ozone behavior requires further improvements in the 

quantification of the roles of chemical and dynamical processes responsible for ozone production, loss, 

transport, and distribution, and their respective uncertainties. The development of realistic scenarios of 

the future abundances of anthropogenic and biogenic trace gases in the stratosphere and troposphere is 

required, particularly with respect to a changing climate. Simulations from the 2010 Scientific 

Assessment of Ozone Depletion indicate future increases of UV levels in the tropics, but decreases at 

mid- and high latitudes due to ozone changes. The 2010 report of the Environmental Effects 

Assessment Panel (EEAP) concluded that research on the impacts of increases in UV radiation 

resulting from stratospheric ozone depletion has substantially advanced the understanding of the 

processes by which changes in UV radiation affect a range of organisms and processes. Recent 

research has highlighted the interactions between the diverse effects of changing UV radiation due to 

ozone depletion and the effects of climate change. These interactions may lead to feedbacks into 

climate change (e.g., modification of carbon cycling in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems), but this 

remains poorly defined. 

4. Coupled chemistry-climate models (CCMs) are more mature, but it is clear that more 

effort must be devoted to model improvement and validation. Earth System Models that include crude 

stratospheric ozone parameterizations are being developed, and these models should begin to 

incorporate improved CCM treatments of the solar forcing, dynamics, radiation, and photochemistry 

of ozone. In addition, long-term measurements represent an extremely important resource, and the 

continued and increased exploitation of these data for scientific process studies is strongly 

recommended. The dramatic contrast between the unusually large 2010 Northern Hemisphere ozone 

columns and the extreme 2011 Arctic ozone depletion has highlighted the close connection between 

ozone, meteorology, and climate. Finally, there is still a need for fundamental laboratory studies to 

estimate photochemical reaction rates, and to refine and update older measurements. In particular, 

photochemical parameters to improve our understanding of long-lived species and new industrial 

compounds in the atmosphere are very important. 

5. Systematic observations are critical to understanding and monitoring long-term 

changes in atmospheric composition and the associated response in ground-level UV radiation. The 

ability to predict expected ozone recovery in a changing atmosphere and to understand the interactions 

 12 The summary in the present annex appears as submitted by the presenter, without formal editing. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

94

with a changing climate requires observations of key trace gases and parameters highlighting the role 

of chemical and dynamical processes. Vertically resolved measurements, especially in the upper 

troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS) region and in the upper stratosphere, are of prime importance. 

Global data networks thus provide the backbone of our understanding of ozone, ozone- and climaterelated trace gases, and UV, and involve many nations around the world. Their operations also provide 

training for atmospheric scientists in both developed and developing countries. The demands on these 

networks are high, in that they provide the basis for all research activities and decision-making. These 

networks fall into two categories, ground-based (including balloons) and space-based and their 

combined utilization place new demands of their operations and reporting. 

6. Data archiving continues to be recognized as an essential component of all atmospheric 

measurements. While several notable achievements have been made in response to the 

recommendations in the 7th ORM meeting report, the continuing need for fully implementing other 7th 

ORM recommendations was emphasized. For example, before being archived, all data must be quality 

assured and include the metadata required by users. Other recommendations included the need for the 

recovery and assessment of historical data, the development of standard data quality assurance 

procedures, enhanced linkage among data centers (O3, UV, GHG, etc.) to ensure availability for 

validation and modeling efforts, and archiving of data obtained from regional process studies for 

improved accessibility. 

7. While there has also been progress in capacity building since the 7th ORM, much 

remains to be accomplished. A number of key activities have been undertaken over the last three years 

that have had significant impact. Examples of some specific activities that could be conducted in the 

near term were presented. It was further recommended that specific metrics be developed for better 

assessing the success of capacity building over the next few years. 

8. The full report of the 8th Meeting of Ozone Research Managers includes summaries of 

all of the oral presentations and all of the submitted national reports. It is available as “WMO Global 

Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, Report No. 51”. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

95

Annex IX 

Bali Declaration13

Bali Declaration on Transitioning to Low Global Warming Potential Alternatives to 

Ozone Depleting Substances 

We, the Parties to the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, having met in Bali, Indonesia from 21 

to 25 November 2011, 

Cognizant that certain ozone depleting substances have high global warming potential 

and that the mitigation of ozone depleting substances could contribute to the reduction of greenhouse 

gas emissions, 

Recalling the general obligation under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention that Parties 

take appropriate measures in accordance with the provisions of that Convention and of its protocol to 

which they are party to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or 

likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer, 

Also recalling decision XIX/6, in which the Meeting of the Parties decided to 

encourage parties to promote the selection of alternatives to ozone depleting substances that minimize 

environmental impacts, 

Mindful that certain high global warming potential alternatives to ozone depleting 

substances are contributing to environmental degradation, 

Reaffirming the need for a transition to alternatives which are technically proven, 

economically viable, and environmentally benign to ozone depleting substances, 

Recalling the declaration signed by 90 Parties at the 22nd Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol in Bangkok 2010, 

Emphasizing the importance of capacity building, financial, technical and other 

assistance needed by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol for 

transitioning to low global warming potential alternatives, 

Acknowledging the decision of the Parties at the 23rd Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol in Bali concerning additional information on alternatives to ozone depleting 

substances, 

 13 The Bali Declaration is presented here as submitted by its drafters, without formal editing. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

96

Hereby: 

1. Note with appreciation the efforts of the Parties operating under Paragraph 1 

Article 5, which selected low global warming potential alternatives for implementing their HCFCs 

Phase-out Management Plans for compliance with the 2013 and 2015 control targets; 

2. Call on Parties to conduct further studies on low global warming potential 

alternatives to ozone depleting substances, that include, but are not limited to, the economic impact 

and its feasibility, technical feasibility, market availability and impact on human health and safety of 

such alternatives in particular with enhanced engagement of stakeholders, particularly the industry; 

3. Invite Parties and others in a position to do so, to provide suitable and 

sustainable financial as well as technical assistance, including technology transfer and capacity 

building needed by Parties, in particular Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 for 

transitioning to low global warming potential alternatives to ozone depleting substances that minimize 

environmental impacts; 

4. Call on parties and the Ozone Secretariat to continue coordination between the 

Vienna Convention and its Montreal Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol to ensure their mutually supportive implementation and the 

achievement of their objectives; 

5. Call on Parties, while recognizing national priorities, to explore further and 

pursue under the Montreal Protocol the most effective means of achieving the transition to low global 

warming potential alternatives to ozone depleting substances. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

97

Annex X 

Summaries of presentations by members of the assessment panels on 

the 2010 quadrennial assessment14 during the high-level segment 

 I. Environmental Effects Assessment Panel 

1. The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) Co-Chair gave an overview of the key 

findings of the 2010 EEAP report, stating that the success of the Montreal Protocol has prevented 

large-scale environmental impacts of ozone depletion, such as increases in UV radiation and 

consequent damage to human health and ecosystems. Increases in sun-burning (erythemal) UV-B 

radiation due to ozone depletion have been small outside regions affected by the Antarctic ozone hole. 

As a result of the Montreal Protocol, major increases in skin cancer rates that would have occurred 

with uncontrolled ozone depletion have been prevented. Large reductions in the growth and 

productivity of plants and aquatic organisms, and hence significant changes to the global carbon cycle, 

also have been avoided. In the future, environmental effects on human health, biota, and materials will 

be compounded by new combinations of environmental factors resulting from the interaction of 

increasing atmospheric CO2, climate change, and UV radiation. 

2. The EEAP Co-Chair then summarised the key consequences of ozone depletion, UV radiation 

and climate change interactions for human health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, biogeochemical 

cycles, air quality and construction materials. It was noted that effects of UV-B radiation on human 

health include increased cataract and melanoma of the eye, decreased immunity for certain diseases, 

and increased skin cancer incidence. Interactions of climate variables, such as temperature, can 

exacerbate UV radiation effects on health. There is a need for further information to the public for 

following a balanced lifestyle to allow for sufficient Vitamin D production from UV-B radiation, 

which is important for maintaining bone structure and preventing certain diseases. Rising temperature, 

rainfall, extreme droughts and increasing carbon dioxide levels together with UV radiation result in 

complex responses and feedbacks for terrestrial ecosystems, raising concerns of significant 

implications for food security and food quality. The role of oceans as a sink for the rising 

carbon dioxide levels has contributed to the acidification of the water with negative effects for skeletal 

formation in calcified organisms, which increases their vulnerability to UV radiation. Nutrient cycling 

through terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the loss of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere are 

accelerated by UV radiation and climate change. The cleansing effect of hydroxyl radicals, produced 

in the atmosphere by solar UV radiation, will decrease with the expected recovery of stratospheric 

ozone. Such a decline in this cleansing effect would increase photochemical smog at low and middle 

latitudes, with negative implications for human health and the environment. Current research indicates 

that low concentrations of the breakdown products of HCFCs and HFCs (e.g., trifluoroacetic acid) 

currently do not constitute a significant risk to human health or the environment. However, this should 

be continuously assessed as the production of the substitutes increase. The effects of climate change 

and UV radiation on construction materials such as plastics and wood indicate increased damage by 

UV radiation in combination with high temperatures, humidity and atmospheric pollutants. Some of 

these effects can be offset by protective stabilisers and wood-plastic composites. 

 II. Scientific Assessment Panel 

3. The Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) Co-Chairs spoke on the science findings from the 

2011 Synthesis Report and the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. The SAP Co-Chair 

noted that the Synthesis Report shows that the Montreal Protocol is working to protect the ozone layer, 

and that furthermore this finding has strengthened since the 2006 assessments. The total abundance of 

ozone depleting substances (ODSs) in the atmosphere continues to decline, even though atmospheric 

levels of ODS replacements such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are increasing as 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been phased out. Ozone column amounts have neither increased nor 

decreased in the last decade, a finding that is consistent with both the small ODS changes during this 

period and the current understanding of the atmosphere. 

4. The SAP Co-Chair summarized the overarching findings of the Synthesis Report on three 

topics. (1) Ozone layer and climate: the Synthesis Report finds that these two issues are intricately 

connected. Ozone as well as ODSs impact climate, and in turn, both are impacted by climate. Hence, it 

may be prudent to consider ozone layer and climate protection together when deciding upon control 

 

14 The summaries in the present annex appear as submitted by the presenters, without formal editing. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

98

mechanisms for anthropogenic chemical emissions. The magnitude of the consequences of climateozone interactions for health, biodiversity, ecosystem function and feedbacks are currently uncertain. 

It is technically and economically feasible to accelerate the phase-out of ODSs that are greenhouse 

gases (GHGs), to phase down the use of high global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), and to leapfrog the use of high-GWP HFCs as alternatives for most HCFC applications. (2) 

Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs have essentially zero ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) but high GWPs; 

the Synthesis Report finds that alternatives with lower GWPs are emerging. If unabated, the current 

HFC levels could, by the year 2050, grow to become 20% of all GWP-weighted GHG emissions. 

Breakdown products from HFC and HCFC uses, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), are not expected 

to be a significant risk to health or the environment. (3) Methyl bromide: the Synthesis Report finds 

that further control of methyl bromide is still possible. For example, approximately 20–35% of present 

global consumption of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) uses could be replaced 

with available alternatives. 

5. The SAP Co-Chair then summarized major findings of the 2010 SAP report, noting that (1) 

atmospheric abundances of ODSs are behaving as expected; (2) the coupling of climate and the ozone 

layer means that Montreal Protocol decisions can impact (and indeed already have impacted) both 

issues, and that climate change will become increasingly more important to the future ozone layer as 

ODSs decline; (3) the ozone hole continues to occur as expected and will persist until after 

midcentury; (4) global ozone depletion is much smaller than the ozone-hole depletion and will persist 

until about midcentury; and (5) changes in surface ultraviolet radiation have been small to date, and in 

the future will be more influenced by climate change than by ozone depletion. 

6. The SAP co-chairs also noted that ozone depletion had been quite severe in both the Arctic and 

Antarctic in 2011. These depletions were noted to be consistent with our current understanding of 

polar ozone loss processes and the slow decline of ODSs in the polar stratosphere. 

 III. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

7. Mr. Ian Rae, Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee started the presentation 

on the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 2010 Assessment Report. He mentioned 

the six Technical Options Committees (TOCs) under the TEAP, i.e., the Chemicals TOC, the Foams 

TOC, the Halons TOC, the Medical TOC, the Methyl Bromide TOC and the Refrigeration, AC and 

Heat Pumps TOC. He said that each TOC reports annually on the progress in phasing out sector 

production and consumption, and on the impact on emissions of ozone depleting substances, that 

TEAP and its TOCs respond to specific requests from the Parties, that the TEAP establishes Task 

Forces to deal with special requests and that the TEAP is involved in reviewing and making 

recommendations on essential or critical use nominations. The TOCs have 1or 2 meetings per year and 

TEAP has one one-week long meeting per year and also meets in the margins of the annual Open 

Ended Working Group and the Meeting of the Parties. He said that each TOC has a membership of 17 

to 28 experts, except the MBTOC, which has 38 members. The TEAP has 20 members that are either 

co-chairs, TOC co-chairs or Senior Expert Members. In total, the TEAP and TOCs have 145 expert 

members, of which 88 are from non-Article 5 and 57 are from Article 5 Parties. 

8. Mr. Ian Rae then continued the presentation on items related to the Chemicals Technical 

Options Committee in the 2010 TEAP Assessment Report. He mentioned that, during 2007-2010, 17 

process agent uses were added to Table A, which contained the list of approved process agent uses, 

and 12 uses were deleted from the list as they were changed or abandoned. He suggested that Parties 

may wish to consider developing an improved standard method of reporting process agent emissions 

that were currently listed in Table B of the process agent decisions. He also said that analytical uses of 

ozone depleting substances, especially carbon tetrachloride are declining slowly as alternative methods 

are adopted. He noted that in-kind and not-in-kind alternatives have replaced 90% of solvent uses of 

ozone depleting substances, and that remaining ozone depleting substance solvent uses are now mainly 

found in parties operating under Article 5. Mr. Rae stated that a comprehensive review on carbon 

tetrachloride emissions was made but that there remains a significant discrepancy between the reported 

emissions and the observed atmospheric concentrations. He also stated that, during 2007 to 2010, little 

change had occurred in destruction technologies except for the cement-kiln use in one Article 5 Party. 

In terms of the way forward, Mr. Rae mentioned that it would be helpful to work with national and 

international standards bodies to establish new standard methods of analysis that do not use ozone 

depleting substances and that the reporting of ozone depleting substance volumes used for feedstock 

uses by Parties through the Ozone Secretariat may enable a more complete quantification of feedstock 

uses. He concluded by saying that a hurdle to overcome in the complete phase-out of ozone depleting 

substance solvents in Article 5 Parties will be the economic impact on small and medium size users 

who make up a major portion of the remaining solvent market. He also suggested that further studies 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

99

will be needed to improve and reconcile bottom-up and top-down calculations of the carbon 

tetrachloride emissions, to search for unreported emission sources and to critically analyse UNEP 

inventory data and to possibly revise the atmospheric lifetime of carbon tetrachloride. 

9. Mr. Miguel Quintero, co-chair Foams TOC (FTOC), then continued the presentation on items 

related to the foams in the 2010 TEAP Assessment Report. He mentioned that the HCFC phase-out is 

complete in all non-Article 5 Parties, with the XPS industry in North America being among the last to 

make the transition. He also said that hydrocarbons are currently the primary substitute, but there is 

pressure to further optimise this option by blending and that unsaturated HCFCs and HFCs (HFOs) are 

showing better thermal performance than saturated HFCs in continuing evaluations. However, 

substantial further validation in both performance and cost is required to support emerging 

commercialisation plans in the 2013 to 2015 timeframe. He stressed that concerns persist over the 

availability of low-GWP replacements for HCFCs in Article 5 Parties and that current options (preblended hydrocarbons, water blown, methyl formate, etc.) may not provide adequate solutions for 

small and medium sized enterprises. The recovery of ozone depleting substances from appliance 

foams continues to be practised but cost effectiveness in carbon equivalents will decrease as the 

product mix shifts to HCFC-containing foams. Further analysis of ozone depleting substance banks 

confirms that flows of ozone depleting substance-based foams from buildings will be modest for the 

next decade to come. As the way forward Mr. Quintero said that, for the transition in Article 5 Parties, 

there continues to be a need to characterise the performance of foams made from low-GWP 

alternatives, especially for rigid foam applications. Pilot projects for methyl formate, methylal, preblended hydrocarbons and supercritical CO2 funded by the Multilateral Fund were noted as being 

especially important. In non-Article 5 countries, the interest is in further improving energy efficiency. 

Additional pressure may arise if proposals to phase-down the use of saturated HFCs are adopted. Such 

measures may serve to strengthen research towards low-GWP solutions, in particular, towards the 

intelligent use of blends. Mr. Quintero said that further investigations are required to determine the 

most appropriate strategies for bank management in foams, in particular CFC management first, taking 

into account baseline release rates and other technical and economic factors. Furthermore, efficient 

ways of transferring existing destruction technologies from non-Article 5 to Article 5 Parties are 

needed. 

10. Mr. Sergey Kopylov, co-chair Halon TOC, then continued the presentation on items related to 

the Halons in the 2010 TEAP Assessment Report. He mentioned estimates for the 2010 global bank of 

halons, and said that the use of Halon 2402 as a process agent by the Russian chemical industry has 

reducing the bank of this halon. He also said that there has been a lag in the establishment of banking 

and management programmes in Article 5 Parties and that the International Civil Aviation 

Organisation had adopted a revised resolution that amended the halon replacement dates to those 

recommended by the HTOC and industry. As regards the way forward Mr. Kopylov mentioned that, 

with no global production authorised for fire protection, the management of existing stocks is crucial 

to ensure halon availability for applications that need them and that Parties may wish to encourage 

national or regional banking schemes to maintain good records that minimise uncertainty in stored 

inventory. He stated that the destruction of halons for carbon credits may not provide the anticipated 

climate benefits. Mr. Kopylov said that, while there is no apparent shortage of recycled Halon 2402 on 

a global basis, there are regional shortages that Parties may wish to address. He noted that, despite the 

introduction of new halon alternatives and their adoption, there will be an ongoing need for halons, 

where the only halon alternative in a few applications will remain a high GWP HFC. He said that, 

given the 25-30 year life of civil aircraft, aviation dependency on halons will continue well beyond the 

time when recycled halons are readily available and that the cost to re-engineer some legacy halon 

systems can be expensive and, in many cases, industry will continue to rely on halons until retrofit will 

be mandated. 

11. Ms. Marta Pizano, co-chair MBTOC, then continued the presentation on items related 

to Methyl Bromide in the 2010 TEAP Assessment Report. She mentioned that, in 2008, 

methyl bromide use was higher for quarantine and preshipment (QPS0 applications than for 

controlled uses for the first time, whereas, in 2010, QPS consumption was 51% higher. She 

noted that the increased use of methyl bromide for QPS is offsetting the gains made by 

reductions in controlled uses. She noted that while there is no obligation or incentive under 

the Protocol to limit QPS uses or emissions, some Parties had nonetheless phased out methyl bromide 

for QPS, and others are committed to a phase-out in the near future. She stressed that 20-35% of 

present global QPS use can be replaced with alternatives available today and that Parties may wish to 

give increased consideration to adoption of alternatives for the major QPS uses (timber, WPM, grain, 

logs).In her closing remarks she mentioned that improved knowledge on remaining methyl bromide 

uses for QPS will help guide a successful phase-out. 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

100

12. Mr. Lambert Kuijpers, co-chair of the refrigeration TOC, then continued the presentation on 

items related to Refrigeration, AC and Heat Pumps in the 2010 TEAP Assessment Report. He 

mentioned that more than 60 new refrigerants, many of them blends, have been introduced for use 

since the 2006 Assessment Report. He then gave a very brief overviews of specific issues from the 

different subsectors. In domestic refrigeration more than one-third of newly produced units globally 

use HC-600a; the balance use HFC-134a. In commercial refrigeration hydrocarbons (HCs) and R-744 

(CO2) are gaining market share for stand-alone equipment in Europe and in Japan. HCFC-22 

represents about 60% of the global commercial refrigerant bank. In non-Article 5 Parties, the 

replacement of HCFC-22 in supermarkets is dominated by R-404A and R-507A, with an increasing 

use of R-744. In industrial refrigeration, R-717 (ammonia) and HCFC-22 are the most common 

refrigerants. R-744 is gaining in low-temperature cascade systems where it primarily replaces R-717. 

13. He said that in transport refrigeration virtually all new systems utilise HFC refrigerants (such 

as R-404A and HFC-134a). In air-to-air conditioners and heat pumps, R-410A, and to a limited degree 

R-407C, are still the major near-term replacements for HCFC-22. HFC-32 has been selected in some 

recent Multilateral Fund projects. Propane (HC-290) is being used in low charge split systems, 

window and portable air conditioners. In water-heating heat pumps, HCFC-22 is currently used in 

Article 5 Parties, while HFC blends are used elsewhere. R-744 based heat pumps have shown steady 

growth. In chillers, HFC-134a and R-410A are the most common options in smaller systems. The use 

of HCs and R-717 only forms a small fraction. Mr. Kuijpers noted that, in vehicle air conditioning, 

several HFC-134a replacement options for new cars (and light trucks) have been evaluated including 

R-744, HFC-152a and HFC-1234yf. The first vehicles using HFC-1234yf will be introduced in 2012. 

14. Mr. Kuijpers noted that many of the lower GWP refrigerants are flammable, which increases 

the need to reduce refrigerant charge and to implement risk-mitigation technologies. He also flagged 

that there is a new emphasis on optimising system efficiency and reducing emissions of high-GWP 

refrigerants. He said that manufacturing of refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump equipment 

by Article 5 Parties for export is expected to increase further. He said that in domestic refrigeration, 

and to a lesser extent in commercial stand-alone equipment, the trend will be a transition from HFC134a to HC-600a. For two-temperature supermarket systems, R-744 is an option for the lower 

temperature level. In the near future, he said, the choices for the medium-temperature level will 

include new low GWP HFCs, R-744 and HCs. In air-to-air air conditioning and heat pumps, lowerGWP HFCs, HFC blends and HC-290 are the most likely near-term refrigerants to replace HCFC-22, 

while in future vehicle air conditioning, the front running candidate among global car manufacturers is 

HFC-1234yf. He concluded by saying that, in contrast to non-Article 5 Parties, the demand for service 

refrigerants in most Article 5 Parties will consist of HCFC-22 and HFC-based service blends. 

15. Ms. Helen Tope, co-chair Medical TOC, then continued the presentation on items related to 

the Medical Technical Options in the 2010 Assessment Report. She said that technically satisfactory 

alternatives to CFC metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are available in almost all countries, for all key drug 

classes, for asthma/COPD and that most countries are expected to complete transition by about end of 

2012, except China, which plans to phase out in 2016. She also noted that, with China supplying 

Russia’s and its own CFCs, the rest of the world could complete the CFC MDI phase-out with careful 

management of existing CFC stockpiles. Technically and economically feasible alternatives are 

available for medical aerosol products other than MDIs, however, small use of CFCs remains in 

developing countries, presumably from stockpiles. Ms. Tope said that commercially available 

alternatives are replacing the use of CFCs and HCFCs in sterilisation and that an orderly phase-out of 

HCFCs in sterilisation is readily achievable to meet Montreal Protocol HCFC phase-out schedules. 

16. Ms. Tope then continued the presentation by giving some key messages from the 2010 report. 

She said that the Montreal Protocol is working, with progress in every sector and many ozone 

depleting substance applications had phased out world-wide. Furthermore that it is technically and 

economically feasible to accelerate the phase-out of most ozone depleting substances, to reduce 

emissions in many applications, to collect and destroy surplus ozone depleting substances, and to 

phase down the use of high GWP HFCs in mobile air conditioning where ozone depleting substances 

have already been phased out. She mentioned that some metered-dose inhalers and laboratory and 

analytical uses still depend on new production of ozone depleting substances under essential use 

exemptions and that some fire protection applications depend on banked halons. She also mentioned 

that refrigeration and air conditioning servicing depends on banked CFCs, and banked and newly 

produced HCFCs and that some minor uses depend on a variety of ozone depleting substances. 

17. Ms. Tope noted that there is no obligation or incentive under the Montreal Protocol to limit 

methyl bromide quarantine and pre-shipment uses or emissions. Nevertheless, she said, some Parties 

have entirely phased out QPS uses of methyl bromide and others are committed to phase-out in the 

near future. She stressed that the adoption of technologies in Article 5 countries for remaining soil and 
UNEP/OzL.Conv.9/7-UNEP/OzL.Pro.23/11 

101

commodity uses before 2015 will help guide successful phase-out of remaining uses. Ms. Tope stated 

that technology is available for Article 5 Parties to “leapfrog” HFCs in some applications, which 

would avoid a second transition out of HFCs and complications of an inventory of HFC equipment 

requiring servicing. She stressed that the same technology is available for non-Article 5 Parties to 

make the transition away from high-GWP HFCs in a new transition. On destruction, she said that the 

opportunity to destroy unwanted ozone depleting substances used as refrigerants is leaking away as 

equipment reaches end-of-life and those substances are discharged and that the co-benefits of ozone 

and climate protection from collecting and destroying those substances likely exceed the costs. It 

would not be profitable without payment for the environmental benefit itself, but it would be more 

profitable if enterprises were paid for the contribution to climate and ozone protection. Ms. Tope 

concluded the TEAP presentation by saying that economic incentives and infrastructure are not 

available in most Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries, and that it is counter-productive to compel 

collection and destruction without incentives, because owners may discharge ozone depleting 

substances that would otherwise be available for paid destruction.