K0653507 090107

UNITED

NATIONS EP

UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

United Nations

Environment

Programme

Distr.: General

16 November 2006

Original: English

Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties

to the Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

New Delhi, 30 October–3 November 2006

Report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Introduction

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

Ozone Layer was held at the Vigyan Bhawan conference centre, New Delhi, from 30 October to

3 November 2006. It consisted of a preparatory segment, held from 30 October to 1 November, and a

high-level segment, held on 2 and 3 November.

Part one: Preparatory segment

I. Opening of the preparatory segment of the meeting

2. The preparatory segment of the meeting was opened by its Co-Chairs, Mr. Tom Land

(United States of America) and Mr. Nadzri Yahaya (Malaysia), at 10.10 a.m. on Monday, 30 October

2006. Opening statements were made by Mr. Marco González, Executive Secretary of the Ozone

Secretariat, and Mr. Thiru A. Raja, Minister of Environment and Forests of India. Mr. Arumugam

Duraisamy, Director of India’s Ozone Cell, briefly took the floor to thank various actors for their

contributions to the preparations for India’s hosting of the meeting.

3. Mr. González welcomed the meeting participants on behalf of Mr. Achim Steiner, Executive

Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). He thanked the host Government and

commended its leadership role in the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, praising it for

establishing international benchmarks and striving ceaselessly to comply fully with its responsibilities

under the Protocol. The current meeting presented a unique opportunity to address the issues on the

agenda and to launch a process for tackling the future key challenges facing the Protocol. The most

important of the remaining tasks before the Parties, he said, was to assist developing country Parties to

enable them to achieve fully their agreed phase-out targets, several of which would come into effect in

2007; the Parties had assigned the Multilateral Fund a special role in that regard and he pledged the

Secretariat’s support for the Fund’s efforts. Phase-out in developed country Parties, he hastened to add,

also presented challenges as well opportunities for advancing ozone layer protection.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

2

4. Before turning to the issues on the agenda, he pointed out that the Protocol’s assessment panels

had over the years played a crucial role by providing independent technical and scientific assessments

and relevant information to guide the Parties in their decisions. Ensuring the optimum structure and

functioning of the panels was one of the important issues to be considered in the run-up to the twentieth

anniversary of the Protocol. He then outlined the items on the agenda, noting that they were

significantly driven by the work of the assessment panels, in particular the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel and its technical options committees, and that many of them had already been

considered and made the subject of recommendations by the Open-ended Working Group at its last

meeting, which would aid the Parties in their consideration of them. In conclusion, he called on all

Parties to approach the issues involved in a spirit of compromise, having in mind the protection of the

ozone layer.

5. In his opening address, Mr. Raja welcomed the participants to New Delhi. He said that the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had played a vital role in the success of the ozone treaties

and commended its work in areas that might have an impact on the climate regime and in monitoring

transboundary movements of ozone-depleting substances. The Protocol’s evolution, he said,

demonstrated that it had played a vital role in the success to date in the fight against ozone depletion,

and he praised the efforts to reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in metered-dose inhalers. He

pointed out, however, that that effort could result in hardships for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of

Article 5 of the Protocol (Article 5 Parties) and called for a balance between environmental protection

and health and stressed the need for financing for the incremental costs of using viable alternatives to

CFCs in Article 5 Parties. He welcomed the efforts that were being made to find alternatives to methyl

bromide for agricultural and quarantine and pre-shipment applications and noted the need to find ways

of safely disposing of ozone-depleting substances with due regard to their global warming effects. He

thanked industry for its participation and contributions to the ozone regime and wished the Parties

success in their deliberations.

II. Organizational matters

A. Attendance

6. The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol was attended by representatives

of the following Parties to the Montreal Protocol: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,

Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia,

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

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

Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica,

Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, European Community, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon,

Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia,

Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan,

Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,

Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique,

Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Papua

New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation,

Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone,

Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian

Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga,

Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom

of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America,

Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Global Environment Facility, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment

Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, United Nations Environment Programme

Information Unit for Conventions, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Secretariat of

the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, World Bank.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

3

8. The following intergovernmental, non-governmental bodies and industry bodies were also

represented: Agramkow/RTI Technologies, Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, American

Lung Association, Arysta Lifescience North America Corporation, Asian-African Legal Consultative

Organization, Bayer India, B-Cat BV, Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX

Olympiad, Beximc Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim Gmbh, California Cut Flowers,

California School of Professional Psychology, California Strawberry Commission, Carrier Air

Conditioning and Refrigeration, Ltd. (India), Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chemtura Corporation,

Clinical Centre Belgrade, Crop Protection Coalition, Desclean Belgium, Dow AgroSciences, Emerson

Climate Technologies, Ltd. (India), Environmental Investigation Agency, Environmental Solutions

Group, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association/Crop Protection Coalition, Florida Tomatoes, Glaxo

Smithkline, Great Lakes Chemical, Greenpeace International, Gujarat Fluorochemicals, Ltd., ICF

International, Indian Chemical Council (Mumbai), Industrial Technology Research Institute, Innovation

Managment, International Commerce Development Corporation, Institute for Governance and

Sustainable Development, International Institute of Refrigeration, International Pharmaceutical Aerosol

Consortium, Japan Fluorocarbon Manufacturers Association, Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone

Layer and Climate Protection, JC Pacific, Inc., Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, M/S Gujarat Alkalies

and Chemicals, Ltd., Nam S&T Centre, Natural Resources Defence Council, Pandora, PharmEnviron,

R&M Consultancy, Inc., Refrigerant Gas Manufacturers Association, Refrigeration and Air

Conditioning Manufacturers Association, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager and Flom, Ltd., SRF, Ltd.,

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Tecumseh Products India Private, Ltd., Teijin

Twaron, Touchdown Consulting Sprl, Vito, NV.

9. Mr. Chandranandan Chirmulay attended as an individual observer.

B. Officers

10. Mr. Land and Mr. Yahaya served as Co-Chairs of the preparatory segment of the Meeting.

C. Adoption of the agenda of the preparatory segment

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

document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/1. Following suggestions by representatives, the agenda of the preparatory

segment was adopted as orally amended, on the basis of the provisional agenda contained in document

UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/1:

1. Opening of the preparatory segment:

(a) Statement by a representative of the Government of India;

(b) Statement by the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment

Programme.

2. Organizational matters:

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

(b) Organization of work.

3. Consideration of membership of Protocol bodies for 2007:

(a) Members of the Implementation Committee;

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

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol;

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

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

the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that

Deplete the Ozone Layer.

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

amendments to the Montreal Protocol.

6. Consideration of issues arising out of the 2006 reports of the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel:
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

4

(a) Review of the nominations for essential-use exemptions;

(b) Review of draft terms of reference for case studies called for under

decision XVII/17 on environmentally sound destruction of

ozone-depleting substances;

(c) Report on activities related to clarifying the source of discrepancies

between emissions determined from bottom-up methods and atmospheric

measurement;

(d) Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for

reductions;

(e) Other issues arising out of the 2006 reports of the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel:

(i) Process agent applications of Brazil and Turkey held open by the

Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties;

(ii) Issues related to travel of members of the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel from non-Article 5 Parties.

7. Consideration of the report of the Secretariat’s expert group meeting on the

ozone-depletion-related results of the Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report and the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s supplementary report.

8. Consideration of methyl-bromide-related issues:

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

and related matters;

(b) Report on the possible need for methyl bromide critical-use exemptions

over the next few years based on a review of national management

strategies;

(c) Quarantine and pre-shipment matters;

(d) Multi-year exemptions for methyl bromide use;

(e) Options that Parties may consider for preventing potential harmful trade

in methyl bromide stocks to Article 5 Parties as consumption is reduced

in non-Article 5 Parties;

(f) Laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide.

9. Difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties manufacturing metered-dose inhalers

which use chlorofluorocarbons.

10. Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances relative to compliance.

11 Feasibility study on developing a system for monitoring the transboundary

movement of ozone-depleting substances between the Parties.

12. Guidelines for disclosure of interests for groups such as the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees.

13. Key challenges to be faced by the Parties in protecting the ozone layer over the

next decade.

14. Compliance and data reporting issues considered by the Implementation

Committee.

15. Proposal by Canada for adjustment of the Montreal Protocol.

16. Other matters.

12. During the adoption of the preparatory segment agenda the preparatory segment agreed to take

up under item 6 (e) of that agenda, “Other issues arising out of the 2006 reports of the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel”, a draft decision to be presented by the European Community on n-propyl

bromide, which had been identified in decision XIII/7 as a new ozone-depleting substance that required

particular attention. The preparatory segment also agreed to consider under item 16 of the agenda,

“Other matters”, a proposal by the United States of America to discuss cooperation with the
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

5

International Civil Aviation Organization regarding halons and another by China to discuss measures

that it was taking to protect the ozone layer prior to holding the Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008. The

representative of Argentina also called for discussion under agenda item 7 of the impact on the

production of HCFC-22 and HFC-23 of projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto

Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

D. Organization of work

13. The preparatory segment agreed to follow its customary procedure and to establish contact

groups as necessary.

III. Consideration of membership of Protocol bodies for 2007

A. Members of the Implementation Committee

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

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol

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

14. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled the need at the current meeting to nominate

candidates for several positions in Montreal Protocol bodies for 2007, according to the procedures set

out in paragraphs 3–5 of document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/2. He called on the regional groups to submit

nominations to the Secretariat.

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

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

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

16. The preparatory segment also agreed on the text of a draft decision confirming the selection of

a co-chair of the Chemical Technical Options Committee and agreed to forward it to the high-level

segment for approval.

IV. Financial reports and budgets of the trust funds for the Vienna

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

17. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair 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 for consideration by the Meeting. In accordance with that practice,

the Parties agreed to establish such a committee, to be chaired by Mr. Josef Buys (Belgium).

18. Following deliberations, the budget committee agreed on a draft decision containing the

proposed budget for the trust fund of the Montreal Protocol, which Mr. Buys presented to the Parties.

He reported that the committee had agreed to give full flexibility to the Secretariat in 2007 for carrying

out activities regarding the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. That, he said, would allow

the Secretariat to use unspent funds from the budget on anniversary-related publications, activities and

hospitality. The committee had also agreed to draw down $395,000 from the existing budget surplus,

which would help to limit the increase in individual contributions by the Parties in 2007. It had also

decided that the capital reserve would be maintained at 8.3 per cent and would rise to 11.3 per cent in

2008, an increase that was in line with the general trend within the United Nations. The result would be

a very small increase in the budget for 2007 and a significantly larger increase for 2008. However, an

additional activity that would require additional funding was a workshop on the future of the Montreal

Protocol, which would be held immediately before the next meeting of the Open-ended Working Group

and would operate in the six United Nations languages. The workshop would add $110,432 to the 2006

budget. With that small increase in the budget, he estimated that the contributions by the Parties would

be increased by approximately 4.5 per cent and that the budget increase from 2007 to 2008 would be

slightly higher.

19. The preparatory segment agreed to forward the draft decision on the budget to the high-level

segment for approval.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

6

V. Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol

and amendments to the Montreal Protocol

20. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that at previous meetings the Parties had adopted a

decision regarding the status of implementation of the various instruments that addressed

ozone-depleting substances, adding that the Secretariat had prepared a draft decision for that purpose

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, ch. III). He congratulated those Parties that had ratified the Protocol and its

amendments during the past year, commending Equatorial Guinea in particular for becoming the most

recent Party to the Protocol. He also called on Parties to encourage the six countries that remained

outside the regime to ratify the Protocol.

21. The preparatory segment agreed that the Secretariat would finalize the draft decision on the

item for forwarding to the high-level segment.

VI. Consideration of issues arising out of the 2006 reports of the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

A. Review of the nominations for essential-use exemptions

22. Introducing the agenda item, the Co-Chair explained that two Parties, the European

Community and the United States of America, had submitted nominations for essential-use exemptions

for CFCs for metered-dose inhalers for 2007 and 2008, respectively, the discussion of which could be

found in pages 23–27 of the May 2006 progress report of the Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel. A nomination had been submitted later by the Russian Federation for the use of CFC-113 in

aerospace applications for the years 2007–2010, discussion of which was on pages 28–29 of the

progress report. The Panel had not had time to give full consideration to the Russian Federation’s

proposal, which had been submitted on 15 April 2006. Given the importance of aerospace applications,

however, the Panel had suggested that the Parties consider granting the Russian Federation a one-year

exemption on the understanding that the nomination would be subjected to further review for

subsequent years.

23. The three nominations had been taken up at the twenty-sixth session of the Open-ended

Working Group, which had decided to forward three draft decisions (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, ch. I,

sections A, B and C) for the consideration of the current Meeting.

24. The nominating Parties prepared two draft decisions on essential uses during the current

meeting, one on metered-dose inhalers and one on the use of CFC-113 in aerospace applications. The

preparatory segment agreed to forward those draft decisions to the high-level segment for approval.

B. Review of draft terms of reference for case studies called for under decision

XVII/17 on environmentally sound destruction of ozone-depleting substances

25. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that in decision XVII/17 the Parties had asked the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare draft terms of reference for the conduct of case

studies on the technology and costs associated with the replacement of CFC-containing refrigeration

and air conditioning equipment, including the environmentally sound recovery, transport and final

disposal of such equipment and its associated CFCs, for consideration by the Eighteenth Meeting of the

Parties. The draft terms of reference were contained in pages 227–228 of the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel’s May 2006 progress report and were discussed in paragraphs 11–13 of document

UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/2. The draft terms of reference had been considered at the twenty-sixth meeting of

the Open-ended Working Group, where Parties had taken note of the fact that a similar study was being

considered by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund. The Committee had taken a decision

on the matter at its forty-ninth meeting in which it suggested that the Parties might wish to request it to

develop consolidated terms of reference for the study and to report on progress at the next meeting of

the Parties.

26. A number of representatives expressed support for a decision requesting the Executive

Committee to draft consolidated terms of reference for the two studies and to report on progress at the

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties. One representative offered to draft a simple draft decision and
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

7

consult with those delegations that spoke on the issue. The Parties agreed that if a contact group was

needed, it would be chaired by Mr. Patrick McInerney (Australia).

27. A draft decision sponsored by a large number of Parties was subsequently presented for

consideration by the preparatory segment, which agreed to forward it to the high-level segment for

approval.

C. Report on activities related to clarifying the source of discrepancies between

emissions determined from bottom-up methods and atmospheric measurement

28. The preparatory segment had before it a note by the Secretariat on issues for the attention of

the Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro/18/2, ch. I, section D.3).

29. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that the Parties in decision XVII/19 had requested

that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel coordinate with the Scientific Assessment Panel

and the World Meteorological Organization to clarify the sources of discrepancies between emissions

determined using bottom-up methods and atmospheric measurements with a view to identifying use

patterns for the period 2002–2015 and making improved estimates of future emissions from banks,

servicing practices, recovery and recycling activities and at end of life.

30. Mr. Lambert Kuijpers, co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,

introduced the report of the Panel’s task force on emissions discrepancies, noting that the task force had

originally intended to do work addressing CFCs, HCFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride but had thus

far only completed its work on CFCs and HCFCs.

31. He then went on to review the methodology used by the group, which included an evaluation

of data sources for production and consumption determinations, a comparison of use pattern information

and a reassessment of past emissions, current bank sizes and uncertainties in top-down emissions

estimates. In that regard he noted that UNEP consumption data had been used, since they were more

comprehensive than other data. In considering the discrepancies, potential sources of uncertainties were

evaluated. Top-down emissions estimates carried three main sources of uncertainty: the accuracy and

precision of observations, the ability to assess global change from a limited number of sites and the

ability to assess the rates at which chemicals were removed from the atmosphere.

32. Continuing the presentation, Mr Paul Ashford noted that the uncertainties in measuring global

atmospheric concentrations of chemicals from the atmosphere were relatively small, with the greatest

uncertainty stemming from uncertainties in the atmospheric lifetimes of chemicals. He then went on to

review the bottom-up uncertainties with regard to foams and refrigeration and to compare the bottom-up

and top-down assessments for CFC-11, noting that discrepancies were most likely to result from three

factors: underreporting of consumption to UNEP, underestimation of emissions from banks and

uncertainties in the atmospheric lifetimes of the chemicals. He next reviewed the size of discrepancies

between bottom-up and top-down analysis for other chemicals, noting that the match between top-down

and bottom-up estimates was better than for CFC-11. The match for HCFC-141b was particularly poor

for the early years of use because of the time lag associated with ratifying the Copenhagen Amendment.

The bottom-up assessment for HCFC-22 was slightly higher than the top-down assessment and there

was high data variability in the reported consumption data for HCFC-142b, which made the

discrepancies between the bottom-up and top-down analyses difficult to assess.

33. In summary, he said that the overall consistency between top-down and bottom-up assessments

was better than had been portrayed in the IPCC/TEAP special report on ozone depletion and climate

change1and that the primary areas of uncertainty had been narrowed to three: reporting gaps in the

UNEP consumption data, including a lack of use definitions; emissions factors used in bottom-up

methods; and removal rates for each chemical. In that regard, he noted that no single source was likely

to account fully for remaining discrepancies and that no immediate justification was seen for modifying

current bank estimates, although ongoing refinements of estimating techniques would continue.

34. The preparatory segment expressed appreciation for the valuable work that had been done by

the group on the matter.

1

For more information on the special report, see chapter VII of part one of the present report.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

8

D. Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions

35. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that decision XVI/14 had called on the Technology

and Economic Assessment Panel to assess global emissions of carbon tetrachloride from certain specific

categories and to assess potential means of reducing emissions. On the basis of the Panel’s work, which

was discussed in the Panel’s May 2006 progress report (pages 78–90), the European Community had

prepared a draft decision.

36. The representative of the European Community expressed concern at the large discrepancy in

reported emissions observed by the Panel. The draft decision would therefore request the Panel to

continue its assessment, paying particular attention to obtaining better data for industrial emissions,

issues relating to production, estimating emissions from other sources, such as landfills, and to

proposing additional requirements and strategies for controls.

37. Responding to a question from one representative, the co-chair of the Chemicals Technical

Options Committee said that he thought that the deadline proposed in the draft decision for a report to

be discussed at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group was feasible but

suggested that the Committee would appreciate having more time to complete its work. Another

representative had some minor textual changes to propose. The Co-Chair of the Meeting invited the two

to work together with the European Community to prepare a revised version of the draft decision.

38. The revised version of the draft decision was subsequently presented to the preparatory

segment, which agreed to forward it to the high-level segment for approval.

E. Other issues arising out of the 2006 reports of the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel

39. The Co-Chair introduced two issues under the item, which were briefly summarized in

paragraph 18 of document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/2. The first related to process agents and the second to the

membership and budget of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. He noted that the Parties

had not expressed their views on either issue at the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working

Group but had agreed to take up both issues again at the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties.

1. Process agent applications of Brazil and Turkey held open by the Seventeenth Meeting of the

Parties

40. The Co-Chair recalled the outstanding process agent requests by Brazil and Turkey, which

were discussed on pages 8 and 65–68 of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s May 2006

progress report. The Panel had found that the use described by Brazil was a process agent use, but

Brazil apparently had stopped using an ozone-depleting substance for that use in 2000. The use

described by Turkey had also been found to be a process agent use, with emissions amounting to

13 ODP-tonnes.

41. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of Brazil said that his country was no longer

producing carbon tetrachloride but acknowledged that his Government did not know whether carbon

tetrachloride was still being consumed for such uses. He proposed that he provide information on that

question at a future date. The preparatory segment welcomed his suggestion and agreed that the Panel

would review the issue of process agents and report back to the Parties in accordance with its mandate

under prior decisions of the Parties.

2. Issues related to travel of members of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel from

non-Article 5 Parties

42. The Co-Chair recalled that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had indicated in

its May 2006 progress report that funds would be needed for 26 trips by 13 members of the Panel and its

technical options committees from non-Article 5 Parties in connection with their work.

43. In the ensuing discussion, many representatives emphasized the importance of the Panel’s

work and the need to find a solution to the problem, suggesting that it be taken up by the budget contact

group. Others suggested that the issue could be addressed by the contact group dealing with the future

of the Montreal Protocol. A number of Parties opposed consideration of the issue in the budget

discussions, saying that they opposed the use of funds from the budget for the travel of non-Article 5

members of the Panel and its committees. Some of them stressed the need to address the larger issue of

the Panel’s membership and to ensure the balanced participation of Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

9

A number of representatives said that non-Article 5 Parties should themselves finance the travel costs of

the members that they nominated.

44. The preparatory segment agreed that the contact group addressing the issue of the future of the

Montreal Protocol could take up the issue. A discussion of the results of that contact group is contained

in chapter XIII of Part one of the present report.

VII. Consideration of the report of the Secretariat’s expert group meeting

on the ozone-depletion-related results of the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change special report and the Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel’s supplementary report

45. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties had

adopted decision XVII/19, in which it had requested that the Secretariat organize an expert workshop

that would consider issues arising from the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel entitled “Safeguarding the Ozone

Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons” (the

Special Report) and a supplementary report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel setting

out the ozone-depletion implications of the issues raised in the Special Report. On the basis of those

reports, the workshop participants were to propose practical measures to address ozone depletion,

including considerations of cost-effectiveness and other environmental benefits. The workshop had

taken place on 7 July 2006, immediately following the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended

Working Group. The report of the workshop was set out in the annex to document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/5.

46. During the ensuing discussion, several Parties welcomed the report of the workshop and its

recognition of the important links between the ozone and climate change regimes. There was some

discussion, however, of the appropriate response from Parties to the report. One representative said that

the Meeting of the Parties should prioritize the practical measures proposed, assess short-, medium- and

long-term objectives and make cost-benefit calculations, suggesting that further research would assist in

achieving those objectives. He also noted that his organization was drafting a decision on future work

stemming from the special report. Other Parties, however, said that prioritizing activities would be

difficult and that Parties could implement those activities that they deemed appropriate to their own

domestic situations.

47. Stressing what he termed an alarming increase in the production and consumption of HCFCs

and HFCs projected in the report and evidence that HCFCs had begun to be traded illegally in many

parts of the world, the representative of an environmental non-governmental organization called for the

fully funded accelerated phase-out of HCFCs. Another environmental non-governmental organization

representative agreed and pointed to recent data indicating that the climate situation and the ozone layer

were still deteriorating; he called on Parties to enact mandatory controls to restrict banked CFC and

HCFC emissions, work with the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change to establish mandatory controls to restrict emissions of banked HCFCs and accelerate

the phase-out of HCFCs and methyl bromide.

48. One representative stressed the need for the Parties to consider the impact of projects under the

Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism on the production of HCFC-22 and HFC-23, noting

that the issue had not been addressed in the Special Report or the supplementary report. In view of the

need to consider the interaction of the ozone and climate change regimes more closely, her delegation

was drafting a decision requesting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report

on the matter.

49. There followed discussion about the appropriate forum for further consideration of the impact

of Clean Development Mechanism projects on ozone layer protection. One representative suggested that

it would be appropriate to address such future work in the context of deliberations on the future of the

Montreal Protocol (under agenda item 13, discussed in chapter XIII of part one of the present report,

below). It was agreed that the proposal would be considered at a later point in the meeting.

50. The preparatory segment agreed to establish a contact group, to be chaired by Ms. Sophia

Mylona (Norway), to consider the matter further.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

10

51. Ms. Mylona subsequently reported that the contact group had been able to reach consensus on

a draft decision, which the preparatory segment then agreed to forward to the high-level segment for its

approval.

VIII.Consideration of methyl-bromide-related issues

52. Prior to taking up the individual sub-items under item 8, the preparatory segment heard a

presentation from the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee on the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel’s September 2006 final report on the evaluation of the 2006 critical-use nominations

for methyl bromide and related issues. The Committee divided its presentation into five sections, which

were introduced by four of its co-chairs, Mr. Mohammed Besri, Mr. Ian Porter, Ms. Michelle Marcotte

and Ms. Marta Pizano, and by Mr. Jonathan Banks, the chair of the TEAP Quarantine and Pre-shipment

Task Force and a member of the Committee.

53. In his presentation, Mr. Besri provided an overview of the Committee’s membership, noting

the need for members from Article 5 Parties and the risk that members from non-Article 5 Parties would

no longer be able to participate if the issue of funding their participation was not resolved. He also

reviewed the trends in overall methyl bromide consumption, noting that consumption for controlled uses

in developed countries had been reduced from about 55,000 tonnes in 1991 to about 11,500 tonnes in

2005, while Article 5 Party consumption of controlled uses, which had peaked at about 18,000 tonnes in

1998, was 9,300 tonnes in 2005. He then introduced the final report of the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee on critical-use nominations

and related matters, noting that the Panel had, during two meetings, reviewed a total of 90 nominations

for 2007 and 2008.

54. Mr. Porter then provided an overview of the evaluation of nominations for critical uses

received during 2006. He noted that the Committee’s evaluation of those nominations had relied on a

range of key criteria, including research trial data, a meta-analysis previously done by the Committee,

the standard presumptions that had been approved by the Parties and schedules of adoption of

alternatives in similar sectors and environments in other countries. On the basis of its review, the

Committee had agreed to recommend approval of an additional 1,634 tonnes of methyl bromide

requested for 2007 and 4,873 tonnes of methyl bromide for 2008. It had not recommended 858 tonnes

of methyl bromide nominated for 2007 and 2,216 tonnes nominated for 2008. Finally, the Committee

had been unable to assess nominations representing 9 tonnes of methyl bromide for 2008, while 6

tonnes nominated for that year had been withdrawn by one Party. He then reviewed the trends in

nominated amounts for exemptions on a use-by-use and country-by-country basis, noting that critical

use nominations were declining and that the use of methyl bromide was declining at a consistent rate

across most sectors. In a number of sectors, however, there was difficulty finding alternatives for certain

uses, in particular pre-plant nursery and post-harvest cheese and ham uses.

55. Explaining the Committee’s review procedures, he noted that, in the absence of substantive

arguments indicating that presumptions should not apply, nominated quantities for some pre-plant soil

uses had been reduced to account for such issues as the use of low permeability traps, the use of

maximum indicative application rates and adoption rates for technically proven alternatives. He further

stated that nominated quantities for some post- harvest uses had been adjusted to conform to a standard

dosage rate. The Committee also noted that it had generally agreed with adoption rates specified by the

Parties, but in some cases it had concluded that such rates were too low. In that regard, the Committee

could not reach a consensus on adoption rates for four nominations. With respect to those nominations,

the majority had agreed to apply trial data from within the nominated area, and adoption rates for

alternatives in similar sectors in other countries, which justified a faster adoption rate. In that regard, the

Committee noted that several Parties had achieved the adoption of alternatives within four years for

crops similar to those nominated, in part through the use of methyl bromide licensing mechanisms. The

co-chair discussed information available to the Committee on stocks and inventories, noting that the

Committee had not taken into account the use of stockpiles when making its recommendations and that

it was up to the Parties to take stocks into consideration, as provided by decision IX/6. Finally, he noted

that Parties receiving exemptions in 2005 had reported that they had used in total about 4,500 tonnes

(one quarter) less then the amount authorized by the Parties for that year.

56. Ms. Marcotte then reviewed the post-harvest nominations for critical use exemptions, noting

that they included 28 nominations in the structures sub-sector and 16 nominations in the commodities

sub-sector. She noted the trends in post-harvest uses by Party and major use, both of which showed a

general downward trend in the use of methyl bromide, and reviewed the factors that contributed to the

continued use of methyl bromide. Concerning further transition to alternatives for post-harvest uses, she
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

11

said that the Committee had noted the acceptance of maximum residue levels for fluoride residues in

foods resulting from sulfuryl fluoride treatment of mills and food processing facilities. She stressed that

the continued adoption of heat treatment and integrated pest management would also contribute to

decreased methyl bromide use in the sector. For durable commodities, either investments to allow the

use of alternatives that required longer treatment times or approval of faster acting alternatives would be

required to make significant progress in reducing methyl bromide for those applications.

57. She highlighted a number of issues which the Committee wished to bring to the attention of the

Parties. One was the need to continue the registration of key alternatives, including 1,3-D, chloropicrin

and sulfuryl fluoride. There was also a need for comparative data for alternatives for disease tolerance in

production of nursery or propagation stock, including strawberry runners and orchard replant. Another

issue related to the ability of some Parties to reduce the frequency of methyl bromide use and the need

for Parties, through economic analysis, to justify economic infeasibility in their critical-use

nominations.

58. Ms. Pizano discussed the 2007 work plan of the Committee, suggesting a 24 January deadline

for nominations. The Committee would meet in March 2007, publish its initial report in April and meet

again in July to consider additional information submitted by the Parties before publishing its final

recommendations at the end of July. She also noted that the critical use handbook had been updated to

include new timelines and other deadlines and would be posted on the Secretariat’s website.

59. She noted that the Committee had reviewed the national management strategies of Australia,

Canada, the European Community, Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the United States of America in

accordance with decision Ex.1/4, which called for an analysis of such plans and an assessment of the

possible need for methyl bromide critical uses over the next few years. With the exception of the plan of

the European Community, which predicted a phase-out of controlled uses within two years, the plans

did not predict quantitative reductions in future levels beyond those stated in the 2006 nomination

requests. After reviewing the trend in the total amounts of methyl bromide requested and the total

amounts approved by the Parties, as well as the trends on a sector-by-sector basis, the Committee

reviewed the Parties’ estimated future needs for methyl bromide. In making its analysis, in the absence

of a quantitative estimate of adoption rates for alternatives or a year of phase-out from the Parties other

than the European Community, the Committee had assumed a level amount for the years 2008–2010

based on the amounts recommended to the Parties for critical-use exemptions in the 2006 round of

submissions.

60. Mr. Banks presented the quarantine and pre-shipment task force report, which had been

incorporated into the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s May 2006 progress report. Only

two Parties had provided additional data since the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working

Group; the data and trends outlined in the report therefore remained essentially unchanged. Reported

annual consumption of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment from 2002 to 2004 had been

approximately 10,600 metric tonnes by 70 Parties. Annual usage was 65 per cent of that level according

to the gross survey results and 50 per cent according to Parties reporting by specific uses. Soil uses were

the most common, followed by grains (the most common pre-shipment use), wood and timber, fresh

produce, wooden packaging materials and dried foodstuffs. He noted, however, that the timing of the

study relative to the widespread application of ISPM 152and the incomplete nature of the data available

to the Task Force made the reports’ findings less than fully reliable. He further noted the suggestion

resulting from an independent review that consumption for whole logs and wood had likely been

substantially under-reported. Finally, he indicated that a comprehensive discussion on alternatives for

quarantine and pre-shipment applications would be included in the Methyl Bromide Technical Options

Committee 2006 report.

61. Regarding decision XVII/9, in which the Parties had called on the Task Force to evaluate the

long-term effectiveness of soil applications of methyl bromide in controlling quarantine pests on living

plant material, he noted that two Parties had used methyl bromide as a quarantine pre-shipment

fumigant for soil to produce plant propagation material to allow government certification standards for

“pest free” levels to be met. He noted that soil disinfestations with methyl bromide were highly

effective at reducing soil-borne pathogens but did not consistently eradicate them. He further noted that

data on subsequent disease in commercial practice was still being sought.

2

Publication no. 15 of the International Standards on Phytosanitary Measures series, published by the Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations under the auspices of the International Plant Protection

Convention.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

12

62. Finally, he summarized the data on the recapture, recycling and destruction technologies

related to methyl bromide that the Parties had submitted to the Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel pursuant to decision XVII/11. Two parties had submitted information on recapture of carbon. The

information received indicated that the cost of such efforts had ranged from $6 to $32 per kg destroyed

and that carbon systems combined with destruction with thiosulfate washing or incineration had a

destruction and removal efficiency greater than 95 per cent, similar to that suggested for techniques

associated with destruction of dilute ozone-depleting substances from foam.

63. Following the presentation, the Co-Chair opened the floor for questions. The parties thanked

the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee and the Quarantine and Pre-shipment Task Force for

their important work.

64. Many issues were raised concerning the 2006 critical-use nominations and the Committee’s

evaluation of those nominations. One representative wondered whether, in its standard presumptions,

the Committee was using ambitious or conservative estimates and whether the fact that not all amounts

approved had been utilized indicated that the Committee was recommending higher levels than

necessary. He also expressed concern at the fact that the Committee had not considered existing stocks

in the different nominating Parties. The Committee noted that information on stocks had not been

available prior to its meeting and that it had therefore not been possible to consider it. He suggested that

the Parties could consider the issue of stocks pursuant to decision IX/6.

65. One nominating Party said that it could accept the recommendations on critical-use exemptions

made by the Committee, emphasizing its efforts to scale down the use of methyl bromide, as reflected in

the lack of nominations for 2007 by some of its member States. Several Article 5 Parties also expressed

their full support for the Committee’s critical use-exemption recommendations, with some expressing

concern at the continued resort to critical-use exemptions by non-Article 5 Parties, stressing that such

exemptions should be showing a clear downward trend. Many nominating Parties emphasized their

efforts to reduce their critical-use exemptions.

66. Some Parties expressed concern that the projected future needs of methyl bromide contained in

the Parties’ national management plans did not show a decrease in expected nominations for

exemptions. One nominating Party argued that the lack of certainty as to their future exemption needs

by some countries coupled with the fact that Parties had not used all of the methyl bromide allocated to

them should give confidence to the Parties that those countries were not abusing the exemptions.

Another Party observed that the European Community’s prediction that it would cease to make requests

for exempt uses within two years was very optimistic. Consequently, he asked for a corrigendum of the

Committee’s report noting that the prediction was based on maximum estimates that might not be

applicable to crops that were particularly problematic.

67. One Party said that at the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group it had

requested information referring to the basis of a meta-analysis carried out by the Methyl Bromide

Technical Options Committee in its assessment of critical-use nominations and that it had received only

a partial response from the Committee. The Committee’s co-chair said that the requested information

had been included in the Committee’s final report, but the Party indicated that the report did not contain

the information it sought.

68. One Party asked the Committee’s opinion as to whether mixtures containing 1,3-D,

chloropicrin, which was being considered for re-registration in some countries, should continue to be

considered a viable alternative to methyl bromide, at least in the short term. Mr. Porter responded that it

was important to consider the mixture in the context of methyl bromide phase-out, but noted that if a

product were going to be re-registered in the future, the Committee could not consider it on a contingent

basis, but would consider it only when the re-registration had occurred. Representatives of two Article 5

Parties urged serious consideration of alternatives to methyl bromide use on high-moisture dates. The

Committee responded that it was still looking into developments on those alternatives, expressing hope

that a research project could be carried out to address the issue, subject to the availability of financial

resources.

69. One Party asked for clarification by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

regarding its preservation of the anonymity of the individuals writing in minority reports. He stated that

while anonymity had been theoretically granted, in practice it had been taken away by the Panel when it

noted that minority statements had been made by four members from a single easily identifiable Party.

The Panel explained that the statement had sought to protect the individual members of the Party in

question, while attending to the need for transparency within and outside the Committee’s proceedings.

The Panel asked for guidance regarding whether and under what conditions statements could be
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

13

presented with anonymity, in particular given the increasing amount of minority statements.

Representatives that took the floor spoke in favour of full transparency.

70. During the discussion of methyl bromide related issues, the Executive Secretary reported that

Australia had submitted a notification of an emergency methyl bromide use. Following discussions with

the Party, the Secretariat, in consultation with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, had

found that the use was justified.

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

related matters

71. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that pursuant to previous decisions of the

Parties, 14 Parties had submitted new 2007 and 2008 nominations for critical-use exemptions for methyl

bromide. Those nominations had been reviewed by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

at two meetings in 2006 and the Committee’s recommendations for the quantities of methyl bromide to

be approved for the two years were summarized in table 2 of document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/2/Add.1.

72. During the ensuing discussion, one representative said that his Government had been unable to

release information on stockpiled methyl bromide for several years because of a legal dispute over the

confidentiality of such information. Following the end of that legal challenge during the summer of

2006, the data had been released, demonstrating the existence of a stockpile that was substantial but was

declining quite rapidly and likely at current rates of depletion to be exhausted in 2009. That represented

a concern to the Party, for a combination of reasons. First, there were still areas where adequate

alternatives to methyl bromide had not yet been identified. Moreover, there was a case for maintaining

stockpiles in order to ensure a smoothly functioning supply chain to meet critical use demands from

non-Article 5 Parties and to meet needs in the event of a catastrophic event or production plant failure.

On that basis, he said that it would be appropriate to agree an adequate methyl bromide stockpile

allowance for Parties, as had been done for other ozone-depleting substances. Agreeing such a figure

would be necessary in order to assess the Party’s critical-use exemptions for coming years, since it

would determine how much would be taken from stockpiles and how much from fresh production.

73. He said that his country had made significant progress in reducing the amount of methyl

bromide used in recent years but stressed that complete phase-out of the product was unreasonable

while adequate alternatives were lacking. With that in mind, the Technical Options Committee’s

decision to recommend a critical-use allowance one-third below the amount his country had nominated

was inappropriate. Furthermore, the Committee’s decision-making process had lacked transparency and

the Committee had failed to follow normal procedures and consider the individual circumstances of the

Party in question. The Technical Options Committee’s findings therefore deviated from the will of the

Parties as expressed in their decision XVI/4 on the working procedures and terms of reference of the

Committee. He said that the Party supported the reasoning of the minority in the Committee, who had

stated that the Committee should defer to Parties’ proposals regarding transition times. He also urged

the Parties to cease the practice of allowing anonymity to those on the Committee providing minority

opinions, in order to enhance transparency.

74. Responding to that statement, one representative said that she welcomed the release of the

stockpile figures but expressed concern at the scale of the Party’s stocks relative to its critical-use

allowance and said that, in line with decision IX/6, the stocks should be taken fully into account when

determining critical-use exemptions. She also noted that the Technical Options Committee had

recommended critical-use allowances for her Party that were significantly below its nominations but

that following an exchange of views it had found them to be acceptable. It was important, she said, for

developed country Parties to set an example to Article 5 Parties, which had done a great deal to reduce

their dependency on methyl bromide.

75. Other representatives voiced disagreement with some aspects of the recommendations of the

Technical Options Committee for critical-use allowances for 2007 and 2008 and one said that the

process and reasoning behind the decision-making was unclear. One representative, however, said that

he fully supported the Committee’s recommendations and that they should be adhered to; future

recommendations should, moreover, exhibit a continuing downward trend in exempt amounts. Another

noted that the Parties’ previous efforts to improve the Committee’s decision-making processes appeared

to have failed to make its recommendations authoritative, despite the fact that they were generally

reasonable and acceptable. He welcomed the opportunity to establish stockpile limits but said that the

situation differed from the stockpiling of CFCs for metered-dose inhaler manufacture and that methyl

bromide stocks could be much smaller. Finally, he noted that the adoption of methyl bromide alternative
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

14

technologies had been strong in some developed countries and weak in others and called for a more

even approach.

76. Two representatives of non-governmental organizations delivered statements. One noted the

Parties’ failure to meet their deadlines for methyl bromide phase-out over the past decade and stressed

the importance of that for curbing ozone depletion, noting that the hole in the ozone layer currently

stood at its maximum size. Both representatives strongly questioned the justification for awarding one

Party critical-use exemptions while it retained what they termed a huge methyl bromide stockpile, since

it allowed that Party to provide stockpiled methyl bromide for non-critical uses at the same time that it

requested authority to produce new methyl bromide through critical use exemptions. Allowing that to

continue would, it was claimed, result in thousands of additional cases of skin cancer worldwide over

the coming years. One non-governmental organization representative rejected the claim that there was a

need to maintain a substantial stockpile, affirming that a two- to three-month supply was commonly all

that was necessary to ensure smoothly functioning supply chains and that needs in the event of a natural

disaster could be met through imports.

77. The preparatory segment agreed to form a contact group to consider the matter further.

78. The chair of the contact group subsequently reported on the lengthy deliberations of the group,

which had led ultimately to a consensus around a draft decision. He thanked all the members of the

group and the Co-Chairs of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee for their efforts and

cooperation. He drew attention to the fact that the amounts recommended for critical-use exemptions

differed from those presented in the report of the Committee. Bilateral discussions with the

Committee’s Co-Chairs had uncovered a number of errors in the original figures, which had been

corrected, and, in some cases, misunderstandings which the group believed would have led to a revision

of the figures if the Committee had been able to reconvene. The figures for critical-use exemptions for

the United States of America had been agreed after extensive discussions on stockpiles, which had

proven to be a very complicated issue; the draft included a paragraph requesting the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel to publish data on stocks. He reminded the Parties that the figures included

in the draft for critical-use exemptions for 2007 were additional to those agreed at the Seventeenth

Meeting of the Parties and that a portion of one of the exemptions for Australia was dependent on a

further assessment by the Panel.

79. The preparatory segment agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for

approval.

B. Report on the possible need for methyl bromide critical-use exemptions over the

next few years based on a review of national management strategies

80. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that with decision Ex.I/4 of their first

extraordinary meeting, the Parties had requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to

submit a report to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-sixth session on the possible need for

methyl bromide critical uses over the coming years, based on a review of the management strategies

submitted by Parties pursuant to that decision. The Panel’s report was available in pages 159–164 of its

May 2006 progress report and pages 20–22 of its September 2006 final report.

81. During the ensuing discussion, one representative noted that the national management

strategies for the period 2008–2010 that had been submitted by countries had generally forecast no

reduction in methyl bromide consumption. In that respect they were inaccurate because they failed to

make allowance for reduced consumption brought about by the adoption of alternatives; Parties should

therefore be asked to submit realistic projections.

82. In response, one representative said that it was very hard to predict when alternatives would

become available and that his Government’s estimates of future usage had therefore been cautious and

assumed little reduction in consumption. He agreed, however, that it was very likely that the reductions

would exceed those predicted. Another said that it had based its projections on existing trends, including

rates of adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide and enactment of new regulatory systems, in an

attempt to generate accurate forecasts.

83. The preparatory segment agreed that the matter could be addressed further in the contact group

established under agenda item 8 (a) to consider critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

15

C. Quarantine and pre-shipment matters

84. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair reminded the meeting that decision XVI/10 had called on

the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to establish a task force to evaluate data submitted by

the Parties on the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes, in an effort to

establish global use patterns and delineate the quantity of commodity-specific methyl bromide use that

could be replaced by technically and economically feasible alternatives and procedures. In addition,

decision XVII/19 had called on the task force to evaluate and report on the long-term effectiveness of

soil applications of methyl bromide to control quarantine pests on living plant material.

85. The Panel had reported at the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the

quantities of methyl bromide used in various applications the areas where it was used and the

difficulties involved with the commercialization and widespread use of alternatives, particularly for

quarantine applications. The Co-Chair then invited the European Community to introduce the draft

decision it had prepared further to the Panel’s report.

86. The representative of the European Community observed that the continuing and increasing

use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment applications should be regarded as one of the

key challenges for the future of the Protocol. The Community’s draft decision was designed to request

experts from the Panel and from the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to work together

to identify common concepts and differences, opportunities and constraints with respect to policies and

measures to support the development and implementation of alternatives and guidance to Parties on how

to minimize emissions where alternatives were not available. The draft decision requested the Panel to

report on the results of its work at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, in

2007.

87. Representatives agreed with the European Community that the issue was important and

challenging and some expressed their full support for the draft decision. One representative said that the

issue should be resolved together with other exemptions for methyl bromide use, such as those for

laboratory and analytical uses. Some representatives said they were concerned about the broad nature of

the cooperation with IPPC envisaged in the draft decision and felt that it might be more practical to

focus cooperative efforts more closely, for example with the existing IPPC working group on

alternatives to methyl bromide. Other representatives wondered whether the timetable set out in the

decision would be feasible, given the need to engage in dialogue with IPPC before beginning the

technical work.

88. The representative of an environmental non-governmental organization said that his

organization fully supported the draft decision, noting that the rapidly increasing use of methyl bromide

for quarantine and pre-shipment applications and the lack of precise data on such uses was a matter of

great concern.

89. The preparatory segment agreed to establish a contact group to consider the issue further. The

chair of the contact group subsequently reported that the group had been able to reach consensus on a

draft decision, which the preparatory segment then agreed to forward to the high-level segment for

approval.

D. Multi-year exemptions for methyl bromide use

90. The Co-Chair recalled that the issue of agreeing criteria for the approval of multi-year

critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide had been discussed in previous years. It had been tabled for

discussion by the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties but due to the crowded agenda for that meeting

discussion had been postponed until the current meeting.

91. The representative of the United States introduced his country’s proposal on the issue,

outlining the advantages of multi-year exemptions, which he said included the provision of greater

certainty to producers of methyl bromide and alternatives and a reduction in the work load of the

various bodies of the Protocol.

92. One representative observed that the proposal had merit, particularly for some specific uses of

methyl bromide, and might save Parties’ time by not forcing them to reconsider the same exemption

year after year when no alternatives were available.

93. Other representatives believed that the time was not yet right to consider the proposal. Granting

multi-year exemptions would send the wrong signal at a time when the Parties should be doing their
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

16

best to progress towards complete phase-out of methyl bromide and would reduce the flexibility needed

to respond to new developments.

94. The preparatory segment agreed to suspend discussion of the issue at the current meeting and

to place it on the agenda of the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.

E. Options that Parties may consider for preventing potential harmful trade in

methyl bromide stocks to Article 5 Parties as consumption is reduced in

non-Article 5 Parties

95. The preparatory segment had before it the May 2006 progress report of the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel (pages 124–125) and a note by the Secretariat on issues for the attention of

the Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro/18/2, ch. I, section F.5).

96. The Co-Chair recalled decision Ex.1/4, taken at the first Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties,

in which the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel was asked to consider measures that might

be useful for preventing potential harmful trade of methyl bromide stocks to Article 5 Parties as

consumption was reduced in non-Article 5 Parties. At the Open-ended Working Group the Parties had

taken note of the Panel’s work but had not proposed any action.

97. The preparatory segment acknowledged the importance of the issue but decided that more time

was needed to develop a draft decision. It was therefore agreed that the matter would be discussed again

at the next meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.

F. Laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide

98. The preparatory segment had before it the May 2006 progress report of the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel (pages 69–73) and a draft decision proposed by Norway on laboratory and

analytical critical uses of methyl bromide (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3/Add.2).

99. Introducing the item, the co-Chair recalled that the Parties in decision XVII/10 had authorized

a laboratory and analytical critical-use exemption for methyl bromide until 31 December 2006 for the

same categories of use and using the same criteria as applied to laboratory and analytical uses of other

ozone-depleting substances. In its review of the issue, as called for in the decision, the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel had found that the existing criteria, particularly those that limited the size

and quality of the chemical, imposed increased cost and thereby limited use and that the small quantities

of methyl bromide used for known laboratory and analytical purposes could be accommodated within

the existing laboratory and analytical use criteria. It concluded that the Parties might therefore wish to

consider whether the existing criteria and categories should be retained for a methyl bromide critical

laboratory and analytical use exemption.

100. Introducing the draft decision on the issue, the representative of Norway drew attention to the

results of the work undertaken by the Chemical Technical Options Committee and the Methyl Bromide

Technical Options Committee, included in the Panel’s May 2006 progress report (69–71). Taking into

account conditions specified in decisions taken by previous Meetings of the Parties, the committees

were not in favour of classifying field trials as laboratory and analytical critical uses. The committees

had concluded that non-ozone-depleting alternatives to methyl bromide were available for a number of

laboratory uses and that some laboratory and analytical critical uses might be exempted as quarantine

and pre-shipment applications or feedstock uses. In summary, she said that the findings of the

committees indicated that the laboratory and analytical critical uses prescribed in her proposed decision

could be extended beyond 31 December 2006.

101. Several representatives expressed support for the draft decision but sought clarification of

certain issues, including whether it adequately covered the categories listed in the Panel’s progress

report. It was agreed that informal discussions would take place among interested Parties to arrive at a

revised draft decision.

102. Following those discussions, the representative of Norway reported to the preparatory segment

that additional categories for permissible laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide had been

included in the draft decision to address the concerns of certain Parties. The preparatory segment then

agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for approval.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

17

IX. Difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties manufacturing

metered-dose inhalers which use chlorofluorocarbons

103. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that with its decision XVII/14, the Meeting of the

Parties had called on Parties to consider a possible decision that would address the situation of

Article 5 Parties that were facing challenges in their efforts to phase out the use of CFCs in

metered-dose inhalers. The Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund had subsequently considered

options for dealing with cases of non-compliance arising from the use of CFC-based metered-dose

inhalers, including regional workshops to create awareness and educate stakeholders on the use of

alternatives. On the basis of the Executive Committee’s preliminary work, the Open-ended Working

Group had produced a draft decision on the issue at its twenty-sixth meeting for submission to the

Parties at their current meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, ch. I, section F). The Executive Committee had

subsequently asked two Parties which currently produced CFC-based inhalers to take specific steps to

avoid falling into non-compliance with their obligations under the Protocol.

104. During the ensuing discussion, several Parties said that many patients in developing countries

depended on CFC-based products, which were often much cheaper than non-CFC alternatives.

Moreover, converting production facilities to manufacture non-CFC alternatives was very costly for

producers and took some years to achieve. One representative said that it was not surprising that

developing countries were struggling to shift to non-CFC alternatives, since even developed countries

had lacked the technology until the late 1990s. Some Parties said that they faced non-compliance as a

result of such considerations and stressed the need for financial support from the Multilateral Fund and

elsewhere for companies in developing countries that were seeking to convert to non-CFC products.

While agreeing that there were significant obstacles to the adoption of CFC-free production in

developing countries, one representative noted that the technology was available and that there was a

need for closer cooperation to ensure its transfer. He also cautioned against deferring consideration of

the non-compliance of Parties that were heavily reliant on CFC-based metered-dose inhalers, affirming

that the key issue was ensuring that such Parties were helped to meet their obligations.

105. The preparatory segment agreed to set up a contact group, to be chaired by Mr. Agustín

Sanchez (Mexico), to consider the matter further.

106. Following the contact group’s deliberations, Mr. Sanchez announced that it had agreed on a

draft decision on the item. The preparatory segment agreed to forward the draft decision to the

high-level segment for approval.

X. Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances relative to

compliance

107. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that in 2005 the Implementation Committee had

discussed situations in which Parties had stockpiled ozone-depleting substances, taking as its starting

point an analysis prepared by the Secretariat (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/7, annex). The Open-ended Working

Group had discussed the matter at its meeting in July 2006 and established a subgroup to consider it

further. At the invitation of the Co-Chair, the chair of the subgroup provided a brief summary of the

group’s work, noting that it had identified potential solutions to the three issues that created potential

non-compliance problems, which he suggested could form the basis for contact group discussions at the

current meeting.

108. During the ensuing discussion, several representatives observed that the issue was important;

one of them expressed his country’s intention to draft a decision on the matter that would provide for

the establishment of a simple approach to monitoring stockpiling based on national earmarking of

stockpiled substances under the supervision of the Implementation Committee. The preparatory segment

agreed to form a contact group, to be chaired by Mr. Maas Goote (Netherlands), to consider the matter

further.

109. Following discussions in the contact group, Mr. Goote presented a draft decision. It was

designed to focus on the scenarios identified by the Implementation Committee and requested the

Secretariat to collect information on cases of stockpiling which fitted the scenarios so that the scale of

the issue could be assessed and the matter discussed once again, in the light of that information, at the

twenty-first meeting of the Parties, in 2009. Some Parties had expressed concern in the contact group

that there might be other cases of stockpiling not covered by the scenarios listed in the draft decision, so
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

18

a paragraph had been added to provide that any such new scenarios would be addressed by the

Implementation Committee under its existing mandate.

110. Following Mr. Goote’s presentation, the preparatory segment agreed to forward the draft

decision to the high-level segment for approval.

XI. Feasibility study on developing a system for monitoring the

transboundary movement of ozone-depleting substances between the

Parties

111. The Co-Chair introduced the item, explaining that decision XVII/16 had included the terms of

reference for a study on developing a system for monitoring the transboundary movement of controlled

ozone-depleting substances between the Parties. The Secretariat had commissioned consultants from

Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) and the Environmental Investigation Agency

to prepare the study.

112. The consultants gave a brief summary of the report on the study, which was available in full on

the Secretariat’s website and in summary in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/6. They explained that the

study had been developed largely through a series of in-depth interviews with government officials and

industry personnel. They highlighted the significance of illegal trade, currently estimated at between

7,000 and 14,000 metric tonnes of CFCs a year. They outlined the problems that could arise in the

systems developed under the Protocol for tracking international trade, including problems with accurate

data reporting and difficulties in identifying substances through labels or customs codes. National

import and export licensing systems, the key instruments used by Parties for tracking transboundary

trade, sometimes suffered from weaknesses in design and implementation and did not always

adequately regulate transit trade. They drew a series of lessons for the Protocol from other international

agreements and systems and concluded by presenting three packages of options, which could be

implemented in the very short, medium and long term and with correspondingly rising levels of costs.

113. All representatives who took the floor congratulated the consultants and the Secretariat for

producing an excellent and useful report. Several took the opportunity to summarize actions that they

had taken in their own countries to tackle illegal trade, including strengthening import controls,

registering importing and exporting companies, improving customs capacity, training and detection

equipment, cooperation with other countries, particularly neighbouring countries, and increasing

penalties for illegal trade. Other representatives highlighted specific problems, including insufficient

information from exporting countries, sometimes misleading information from exporting companies and

a lack of institutional capacity to track transboundary movements.

114. Several representatives expressed the view that all the options described in the report were

feasible and should be implemented. Others agreed with the report’s observation that many of its

options were activities which Parties should already be implementing in accordance with their existing

obligations under Article 4B of the Protocol, on licensing systems, and in accordance with several

decisions of meetings of the Parties. Some representatives stated their preference for tackling illegal

trade through full implementation of the existing provisions of the Protocol rather than the adoption of

new ones, as the report suggested for long-term options.

115. One representative said that the report had given inadequate consideration to the question of

capacity-building, particularly for customs authorities in the smaller developing countries, suggesting

that there was a clear need to share information between all stakeholders from all relevant government

departments. Another representative drew attention to the need to analyse market prices for

ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes.

116. The representative of the European Community observed that, while the report contained many

important recommendations, it had been received only recently. The Parties therefore needed more time

to consider its options, particularly the medium- and long-term proposals and their associated costs. He

announced that he had submitted a draft decision designed to encourage Parties to implement their

existing obligations as soon as possible and to allow Parties until 31 March 2007 to submit written

comments on the other options set out in the report and any others they might wish to propose, which

could then be discussed at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and the

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007.

117. The preparatory segment decided to defer further consideration of the item until the European

Community’s draft decision had been circulated.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

19

118. Following circulation of the draft decision and consultations among the Parties, the

representative of the European Community introduced a revised draft. It included additional text

encouraging Parties to make use of existing tracking systems under other multilateral environmental

agreements, requesting the Secretariat to assess the suitability for tracking of specified databases and

encouraging the Compliance Assistance Programme of UNEP to continue its efforts in customs and

ozone officer training.

119. One representative suggested that further text should be added encouraging non-Article 5

Parties to share their experience in tracking chemicals under other multilateral environmental

agreements with Article 5 Parties. The Co-Chair suggested that further consultations should be

undertaken on the draft decision.

120. Following those consultations, the representative of the European Community reported that

consensus had been reached on a modified draft decision. Language had been incorporated encouraging

non-Article 5 Parties to share their experience in tracking chemicals with Article 5 Parties and also to

request Parties with experience in using trade databases to inform the Secretariat of their suitability and

cost. The preparatory segment agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for

approval.

XII. Guidelines for disclosure of interests for groups such as the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options

committees

121. The Meeting had before it a note by the Secretariat on issues for the attention of the Meeting of

the Parties, which included a section on guidelines for disclosure of interests for members of such

groups as the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/2, ch. I, section J); a revised proposal submitted by Canada on the guidelines

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3/Add/3); and the May 2006 progress report of the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel (pages 229–230).

122. Introducing the item, the co-Chair recalled that, at the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties,

Canada had put forward a specific proposal for guidelines for disclosure of interests and that, owing to

lack of time at that meeting, the Parties had agreed to refer the matter to the current Meeting. Following

discussion of the proposal at the meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group in July 2006 and further

comments from Parties, Canada was submitting a revised proposal for consideration at the current

meeting.

123. The preparatory segment agreed to set up a contact group, to be chaired by Mr. Paul Krajnik

(Austria), to discuss the proposal further.

124. Following the group’s deliberations, Mr. Krajnik reported to the preparatory segment that

despite a comprehensive exchange of views, the group had been unable to reach consensus on the issue.

He suggested, however, that participants in the group could continue bilateral discussions during the

current meeting. The preparatory segment therefore agreed that such discussions should take place.

125. At a later stage in the meeting, Mr Krajnik reported that he was pleased to announce that

further discussions had been fruitful and had resulted in a draft decision. The preparatory segment

agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for approval.

XIII.Key challenges to be faced by the Parties in protecting the ozone layer

over the next decade

126. The Meeting had before it document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, section H of which dealt with key

challenges to be faced by the Parties in protecting the ozone layer over the next decade, and submissions

from several Parties regarding those challenges (UNEP/Ozl.Pro.18/INF/5).

127. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair reminded the Parties that the Open-ended Working Group

at its twenty-sixth meeting had discussed a proposal by Canada to initiate discussions on questions and

issues relevant to ensuring the future success of the Montreal Protocol and its institutions. Parties had

been requested to submit to the Secretariat any additional questions and issues. Both the initial proposal

and the submissions were before the current meeting.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

20

128. The representative of Canada said that the proposal had been structured as an open list of

overarching and specific questions that Parties might consider as they faced the short-, medium-, and

long-term challenges related to protecting the ozone layer. He suggested that the way forward might be

for Parties to undertake further discussion to identify, categorize and prioritize such questions and issues

as a basis for the development of a strategy document for consideration at the next meeting of the

Parties.

129. The initiative received broad support, and several representatives agreed that the Parties at the

current meeting should discuss the key issues and take a decision on the process by which they would

be addressed. Many representatives drew attention to the achievements of the Montreal Protocol during

the two decades of its existence. One representative said a major factor in that success had been the

availability of technology and its transfer, facilitated by the Multilateral Fund and other instruments of

the Protocol. That very success, however, raised further questions related to the future work of the

Protocol and the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund to support such work. Another representative

observed that a major challenge lay in achieving a balance between educating the public in the

successes of the Protocol while maintaining public interest in and support for the work that still

remained to be done.

130. Several Parties recognized that the dynamic nature of current events required institutional

change, for example in the roles of the advisory bodies and the frequency of their meetings and in the

reallocation of resources to reflect the continuing needs of Article 5 Parties. Further flexibility was

needed to adapt to the widening environmental agenda represented by a range of multilateral

environmental agreements, funds and implementing agencies. At the same time, the Protocol needed to

avoid the mistakes made by other multilateral environment agreements by maintaining its focus on

action and simplicity.

131. Other issues identified by the Meeting as requiring further discussion included the phase-out of

HCFCs and other ozone-depleting substances still being produced and consumed; illegal trade;

compliance; monitoring and regulation; replacement technologies; continuing support and

capacity-building for developing countries; and maintaining awareness of the possibility that new

ozone-depleting substances might be identified in future.

132. Regarding the way forward various suggestions were made, including a workshop and an

intersessional working group. One representative suggested a two-day seminar held back-to-back with

the next meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and outlined how such a seminar might be

structured.

133. The preparatory segment agreed to establish an informal contact group, to be chaired by Mr.

Phillipe Chemouny (Canada) and Ms. Marcia Levaggi (Argentina), to consider further the issues raised.

134. At a later stage in the meeting, Ms Levaggi reported on the conclusions of the contact group,

which had agreed on a draft decision. The group had decided to recommend the organization of a

two-day open-ended dialogue, to be held immediately preceding the twenty-seventh meeting of the

Open-ended Working Group; a draft agenda for the dialogue was annexed to the draft decision. All

Parties were encouraged to submit suggestions for topics to be taken up during the dialogue and the

Secretariat was requested to prepare a background document, including information on the

achievements of the Protocol to date, background for the discussions on the agenda and a compilation of

Parties’ submissions. A summary of the discussions and the key issues arising from the dialogue would

be reported at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. The preparatory segment

agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for approval.

XIV.Compliance and data reporting issues considered by the

Implementation Committee

135. The Co-Chair invited Mr Mikheil Tushishvili (Georgia), President of the Implementation

Committee, to present a summary of the report of the thirty-seventh meeting of the Committee and the

major issues that the Committee had considered. The full text of the report was before the Meeting in

document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/37/7, together with its accompanying draft decisions.

136. The President of the Committee explained the stages of the non-compliance procedure

overseen by the Committee. For the first stage, data reporting, Parties’ performance was impressive: all

Parties had reported base-year data, only one still had to report baseline data and only nine (5 per cent)

still had to report annual data for 2005. The Committee was recommending acceptance of Mexico’s
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

21

request to change its baseline data for carbon tetrachloride, having judged that the request met all the

criteria set out in decision XV/19.

137. The next stage of the Committee’s work was to identify deviations from the control schedules.

Bangladesh had been the first Party for ten years to use self-nomination to trigger the non-compliance

procedure and had notified the Secretariat that it might fall into non-compliance in the years 2007 to

2009 due to difficulties in phasing out CFCs used in the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers. The

Committee intended to return to the issue in the following year in the light of further information from

Bangladesh and the discussion at the current meeting on the difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties

in phasing out the manufacture of CFC-based metered-dose inhalers.

138. When deviations in a Party’s data revealed non-compliance with the control schedules of the

Protocol, the Committee requested a plan of action for returning the Party to compliance as soon as

possible. The bulk of the draft decisions presented by the Committee to the Meeting of the Parties

included requests for such plans of action and approval of those that had been submitted. Much of the

work of the Committee consisted in monitoring the implementation of such plans of action and in that

regard the President noted that it was rare for Parties not to adhere to them.

139. He drew the attention of the Meeting to the draft decision on licensing systems, which was

different from the standard decision the Committee had forwarded to previous meetings of the Parties.

As well as recording the number of Parties which had ratified the Montreal Amendment and established

licensing systems, the draft decision noted that a failure to establish licensing systems by Parties that

had ratified the Amendment put them in a state of non-compliance with their obligations and could

make them subject to the non-compliance procedure. Implementation of effective licensing systems was

a vital tool both for tackling illegal trade and for monitoring compliance, and the Committee wished to

encourage all Parties to introduce and operate such systems effectively.

140. The Committee had also discussed improvements in its own procedures, including the

publication of a comprehensive primer on the non-compliance procedure and a set of standardized

recommendations, both of which would soon be available on the Secretariat’s website. The Committee

had held a brief discussion on challenges to the procedure, including the problem of late submission of

data and information to the Committee, and planned to return to the topic next year.

141. The President drew the Meeting’s attention to one item which had been discussed at the

thirty-sixth meeting of the Committee, in July, that of the reporting, presentation and review of data in

respect of de minimis quantities of ozone-depleting substances relative to compliance. The problem had

arisen because the Secretariat and Parties had adopted different approaches at different times to

rounding figures when reporting, reviewing and presenting data. Rounded data could disguise a small

level of non-compliance or, conversely, could put a Party into apparent non-compliance when more

precise figures might reveal that it was in fact within the control limits.

142. The Committee had discussed the options prepared by the Secretariat in document

UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/INF/7 and decided to recommend the “combination approach”, which included

retaining the current practice of allowing each Party individually to determine the level of precision

with which it would report data. It also invited the Meeting of the Parties to decide whether it wished to

set a de minimis level. If a Party’s deviation from the Protocol’s consumption or production control

limits was below the de minimis level, the Implementation Committee would defer consideration of its

compliance status for one or more years. Finally, it invited the Meeting of the Parties to decide on a

standardized number of decimal places for the presentation and review of data relative to compliance.

143. In conclusion, the President expressed his thanks to his colleagues on the Committee, the

Ozone Secretariat, the Executive Committee and secretariat of the Multilateral Fund, the implementing

agencies and all the Parties which had attended the Committee’s meeting. He observed that in the

non-compliance procedure of the Montreal Protocol the Parties had a flexible and sophisticated system

with fifteen years of experience behind it and a good record of success. The year 2007 would bring new

challenges, including monitoring of compliance with new control limits for Article 5 Parties and the

timing of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties, which fell before the 30 September deadline for data

reporting. He encouraged all the Parties to support the Committee’s efforts to maintain the integrity of

the Montreal Protocol by continuing their excellent record of reporting data early.

144. Representatives of all Parties which took the floor, including some which had interacted

directly with the Committee, expressed their appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the

President and members of the Implementation Committee. Noting that the draft decision on the United

Republic of Tanzania was being withdrawn because the Party had submitted corrected data showing it
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

22

to be in compliance, the Meeting agreed to forward all the other draft decisions to the high-level

segment for approval.

145. On the issue of de minimis quantities, the representative of Finland, on behalf of the European

Union, stated that he believed that Parties needed more time to consider and respond to the Secretariat’s

detailed background paper. His delegation had accordingly tabled a draft decision designed to defer

discussion to the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, and invite Parties to

submit responses to the document.

146. Another Party observed, however, that the problem had only arisen because in 2005 the

Secretariat had changed its normal practice of reporting data to one decimal place and had started

reporting it to three decimal places. He believed that that should not have been done in the absence of an

explicit instruction from the Parties, particularly as its impact had been to change the potential

compliance status of at least one Party. A change to three decimal places might require extensive

revisions of national regulations and programmes. He believed that no decision was needed, and that the

Meeting should simply agree to instruct the Secretariat to return to its previous practice of reporting data

to one decimal place.

147. Other Parties agreed, observing that the Protocol itself was silent on the issue. Reporting data

to one decimal place was a reasonable standard given the uncertainty inherent in some of the data, for

example for imports. In the light of the discussion, the representative of Finland, on behalf of the

European Union, withdrew his draft decision and accepted the view that the Secretariat should revert to

reporting and reviewing data to one decimal place only. The representative of the Secretariat stated that

the Ozone Secretariat appreciated the input and guidance from the Meeting.

XV. Proposal by Canada for adjustment of the Montreal Protocol

148. The preparatory segment had before it a proposed adjustment of the Montreal Protocol to

advance the phase-out of the production of CFCs by non-Article 5 Parties to meet the basic domestic

needs of Article 5 Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, chapter II) and a note by the Secretariat on issues for

the attention of the Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/2).

149. Introducing the item, the co-Chair said that a contact group had been set up at the twenty-sixth

meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group to discuss the proposal. Canada had agreed to obtain

further information on the issue as it related to the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties for CFCs

for metered-dose inhalers and to make changes to the proposal to reflect those comments and address

certain administrative issues.

150. The preparatory segment agreed that the contact group established by the Open-ended Working

Group would continue its discussion of the issue at the current meeting in the light of the new

information provided by Canada and would be chaired by Ms. Laura Beron (Argentina).

151. Ms. Beron subsequently reported on the deliberations of the contact group, which had met on

several occasions. The group had recognized that while it would be possible to reduce production for

basic domestic needs further, it was important to ensure an adequate supply of pharmaceutical-grade

CFCs for metered-dose inhalers.

152. Following its deliberations, the group was not able to recommend that the adjustment proposed

by Canada be forwarded to the high-level segment, and agreed instead to note that paragraph 3 of

decision XVII/12 urged non-Article 5 Parties to ensure an accelerated phase-out of their production for

basic domestic needs. It also agreed to note that through voluntary initiatives, total annual production of

CFCs to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties were estimated to be approximately 2,000

ODP-tonnes in 2007 and 1,500 ODP-tonnes in 2008 and in 2009. The preparatory segment took note of

the group’s report.

XVI.Other matters

A. n-propyl bromide

153. Introducing a draft decision proposed by her Party, the representative of the European

Community recalled that n-propyl bromide had been identified as an ozone-depleting chemical but was

not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. Following the latest report of the Scientific Assessment Panel,

the Parties needed more information on the chemical’s ozone-depleting potential and its production,

uses and emissions. The draft decision accordingly requested the Technology and Economic
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

23

Assessment Panel to continue its assessment of n-propyl bromide, paying particular regard to the issues

she had just listed, and to report on the issue at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working

Group.

154. Following suggestions for minor textual changes to the draft decision, it was agreed that

interested Parties would produce a revised draft for further consideration at the current meeting. The

revised draft decision was subsequently presented to the preparatory segment, which agreed to forward

it to the high-level segment for approval.

B. Collaboration with the International Civil Aviation Organization

155. The representative of the United States recalled the excellent work which the Halons Technical

Options Committee had carried out with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). She

requested the Ozone Secretariat to facilitate further such collaboration by working together with the

ICAO secretariat. The provisions of decision XV/11, which had authorized representatives of the Ozone

Secretariat and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to engage in discussions with the

relevant ICAO bodies, were still relevant.

156. The preparatory segment took note of the intervention and agreed to consider the issue at a

future date.

C. Beijing Olympics

157. The representative of China introduced the observer from the Beijing Organizing Committee

for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, who explained the steps the Committee was taking to ensure that

the Games, to be held between 8 and 24 August 2008, would be a green Olympics. The Committee had

worked in close collaboration with the Chinese State Environmental Protection Administration and the

UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics to ensure that ozone protection was built into

all its activities. Those included setting guidelines to exclude the use of CFCs or halons in all

construction, accommodation and catering associated with the Games and extending the same principles

to procurement contracts covering, for example, air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Potential

sponsors’ performance with regard to ozone protection was being taken into account when sponsorship

was selected. The effect of these initiatives included the widespread use of ozone-depleting

substance-free refrigerants in cooling systems associated with the Games.

158. The Committee was also engaging in public education and awareness-raising activities and was

promoting the objective of ozone protection through the website www.beijing2008.com/environment

and through leaflets, which were available at the current meeting. In recognition of its efforts, the

Committee had recently been awarded a special prize by the State Environmental Protection

Administration. She invited all representatives to come to Beijing in 2008 and participate in an

ozone-friendly Olympics.

D. Greenpeace report on SolarChill project

159. The representative of Greenpeace reported to the Meeting on the SolarChill project. A

partnership between seven organizations – UNEP, the World Health Organization, the United Nations

Children’s Fund, GTZ Proklima, the Danish Technological Institute, Programmes for Appropriate

Technologies in Health and Greenpeace – had developed a solar-chilled vaccine cooler, which aimed to

provide environmentally sustainable solar-powered vaccine and food refrigeration to regions of the

world with inadequate or no electricity supply, thus saving valuable vaccine from spoiling due to lack of

a proper cold chain. The cooler used hydrocarbon technology to store solar energy in ice, doing away

with the need for batteries, and was cost effective. The project had recently won the Cooling Industry

Award in the environmental pioneer refrigeration category. He announced that the President of India,

Mr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, had that day bought two vaccine coolers for his house in Delhi, thus becoming

the first person in the world to purchase the technology.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

24

Part two: High-level segment

I. Opening of the high-level segment

160. The high-level segment of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties was held on 2 and 3

November 2006 and was opened at 10.20 a.m. on Thursday, 2 November, by Mr. Manmohan Singh,

Prime Minister of India.

161. Opening statements were made by Mr. Singh; Mr. Thiru A. Raja, Minister for the Environment

and Forests of India; Mr. Shafqat Kakakhel, Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), who spoke on behalf of Mr. Achim Steiner, the Executive Director

of UNEP; and Mr. Elias Mulungula, President of the Bureau of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to

the Montreal Protocol.

A. Welcome by representatives of the Government of India

162. Welcoming all to his country, Mr. Singh recalled Indira Gandhi’s famous remark that poverty

was the worst form of pollution, which he said had launched a global debate on the relationship between

poverty alleviation, economic growth and environmental conservation that had led to the global

recognition of the need to liberate people from poverty while protecting the world’s common natural

heritage. With that in mind, India had ratified many environmental instruments since 1972 and

participated in numerous regional cooperation and bilateral aid programmes. Domestically, India’s

sustainable development regime had succeeded in reversing the deterioration in the key environmental

measures at a far lower level of per capita earnings than was normally the case.

163. Recounting the history of the global ozone layer protection regime, he noted that India had met

all its obligations under the Protocol and other multilateral environmental agreements, sometimes ahead

of schedule. The Protocol’s success, he said, rested on a strong scientific consensus; clarity about

responsibility for the problem; the availability of reasonably priced mitigation technologies; the

introduction through the London Amendment of identical per capita entitlements for both developing

and developed countries; and financial arrangements to cover the incremental costs of developing

countries in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Still there was room

for improvement. Further capacity-building for developing countries was needed, as was more intensive

technology transfer, in particular to enable such countries to produce capital equipment. There were also

pitfalls to avoid, such as the use of trade restrictions to compel compliance, which was undesirable since

it could adversely affect economic growth and poverty alleviation; a better approach was to provide the

necessary resources, delivered through well-tested mechanisms, above and beyond those earmarked for

poverty alleviation.

164. Concluding, he said that if India could eliminate poverty within an open, democratic society

that protected human rights, the rule of law and the environment, it would represent a new path to

sustainable development. It would be necessary, however, for economics, globalization, society and

polities to become more inclusive. In view of the Protocol’s great global importance, he urged the

Parties to seek a consensual means of addressing the world’s shared concerns.

165. Mr. Raja warmly welcomed the meeting participants to New Delhi. He noted that the Montreal

Protocol was at an advanced stage of compliance, with most ozone-depleting substances set to be

phased out by 2010, and reviewed some of the activities taken by India to implement its provisions. He

praised the Protocol as the first agreement by which developed and developing countries had taken

proactive steps to undertake binding commitments on the basis of common but differentiated

capabilities and responsibilities and said that its implementation offered important lessons on how to

address other challenging global environmental issues. The decisions to be considered by the Parties

were significant and potentially contentious, given that they had both environmental and economic

implications, but he expressed confidence that the spirit of cooperation that had always prevailed in the

Meeting of the Parties would ensure a successful outcome.

166. Mr. Namo Narain Meena, Minister of State for the Environment and Forests of India, took the

floor to give a vote of thanks to all those who had contributed to making the Eighteenth Meeting of the

Parties possible.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

25

B. Statement by the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment

Programme

167. Mr. Kakakhel, on behalf of Mr. Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP, thanked the

Prime Minister of India and his Government for their warm hospitality. He said that the Montreal

Protocol was a shining example of global solidarity and the application of the principle of common but

differentiated responsibility and an admirable instance of science and technology facilitating and

guiding actions for addressing a vital issue for human survival. The Protocol’s success had been

facilitated by the work of its assessment panels and the funding provided by the Multilateral Fund and

other funding mechanisms, as well as industry’s ability to devise affordable alternatives to ozonedepleting substances. The fulfillment of the Protocol’s goals, however, required persistent and resolute

efforts by the Parties and other actors to overcome the challenges ahead. Those challenges included the

use of methyl bromide in quarantine and pre-shipment applications and the need for timely and full

contributions to the ozone treaties’ trust funds and for further regulatory and enforcement efforts to

phase-out ozone-depleting substances. The latter would require capacity-building activities for

developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Calling on the Parties to maintain their

resolve to implement the Protocol fully, he wished them success in their deliberations.

C. Statement by the President of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol

168. Mr. Mulungula thanked the Indian Government for hosting the meeting and commended

India’s efforts to protect the environment and to implement the Montreal Protocol. He reported that

Montenegro had very recently become the 191st Party to the Protocol, calling it an encouraging sign

that universal membership might soon be achieved and an indication of the international community’s

commitment to protect the ozone layer. Congratulating all the Parties for their efforts to comply with

their obligations under the Protocol, he called on them to maintain their determination until the task was

completed.

II. Organizational matters

A. Election of officers for the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol

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

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

Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol:

President: Mr. Elias Mulungula (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

(African group)

Vice-Presidents: Mr. Faisal Saleh Hayat (Pakistan)

(Asian and Pacific group)

Mr. Evgeny Gorshkov (Russian Federation)

(Eastern European group)

Mr. Juan Filpo (Dominican Republic)

(Latin American and Caribbean group)

Rapporteur: Mr. Paul Krajnik (Austria)

(Western European and others group)
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

26

B. Adoption of the agenda of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol

170. The following agenda for the high-level segment was adopted on the basis of the provisional

agenda contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/1:

1. Opening of the high-level segment:

(a) Welcome by representatives of the Government of India;

(b) Statement by the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment

Programme;

(c) Statement by the President of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to

the Montreal Protocol.

2. Organizational matters:

(a) Election of officers for the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol;

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

Montreal Protocol;

(c) Organization of work;

(d) Credentials of representatives.

3. Presentations by the assessment panels on their work on the

2002-2006 assessment reports.

4. Presentations on the work of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund

for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the Multilateral Fund

secretariat and the Fund’s implementing agencies.

5. Statements by heads of delegations.

6. Report of the Co-Chairs of the preparatory segment and consideration of the

decisions recommended for adoption by the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to

the Montreal Protocol.

7. Dates and venue for the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol.

8. Other matters.

9. Adoption of decisions by the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol.

10. Adoption of the report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol.

11. Closure of the meeting.

171. The President clarified that unless delegations raised at the time of adoption of the agenda

issues to be included under item 8, “Other matters”, no such issues would be considered during the

current meeting. No such issues were raised.

C. Organization of work

172. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to follow its customary procedures.

D. Credentials of representatives

173. The bureau of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties approved the credentials of the

representatives of 88 of the 132 Parties represented at the Meeting. The bureau provisionally approved

the representation of 2 of the 132 Parties on the understanding that they would forward their credentials

to the Secretariat as soon as possible. The bureau urged all Parties attending future meetings of the

Parties to make their best efforts to submit credentials to the Secretariat as required under rule 18 of the

rules of procedure.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

27

III. Presentations by the assessment panels on their work on the

2002–2006 assessment reports

A. Scientific Assessment Panel

174. Mr A. R. Ravishankara, Mr.. A.L. Ajavon and Mr David Fahey, members of the Scientific

Assessment Panel, outlined progress with and the main findings of the 2006 scientific assessment of

ozone depletion. The work, which had begun in December 2004 after terms of reference had been

agreed by the Meeting of the Parties, had involved a total of 308 scientists from 34 countries. An

executive summary had been released in August 2006 and was available on the websites of UNEP and

the World Meteorological Organization. The full publication would be available on those websites in

January 2007 and in print in March 2007. As in previous years, an important part of the 2006

assessment would be a section entitled “Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer”;

aimed at the general public, educators, students and policy-makers, it would also be available

separately.

175. The assessment confirmed that levels of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere had

peaked in the early 1990s and were declining as expected in line with decreasing ozone-depleting

substance production, proving that the Montreal Protocol was working. Future levels, however, were

subject to some uncertainty over emissions from CFC banks, currently increasing production of HCFCs

and atmospheric transport.

176. Global ozone depletion was currently at its peak level. Recovery to pre-1980 levels at

mid-latitudes was expected by approximately 2049, five years later than had been estimated in the 2002

assessment, owing to better estimates of emissions from banks and a higher than anticipated production

of HCFC-22. Uncertainties due to interactions with climate change meant that ozone levels might not

return to pre-1980 levels even when concentrations of ozone-depleting substances did, or might mean

that the ozone level would recover more quickly. The Antarctic ozone hole was expected to disappear

by 2065. That was fifteen years later than had been estimated in the 2002 assessment and was due to a

better understanding of atmospheric transport rather than to any failings of the Montreal Protocol.

177. Changes in levels of surface ultraviolet radiation followed changes in stratospheric ozone

levels, but once again climate change was expected to have a significant impact, particularly through

changes in cloudiness: ultraviolet levels might never return to pre-1980 levels or they might return more

quickly than the ozone-depleting substances.

178. Responding to questions, the members of the Panel confirmed that changes in tropospheric

ozone had been included in the assessment, as had the impact of gases emitted from geological activity.

Ozone depletion in the Arctic, although significant, was less severe than in the Antarctic (there was no

ozone “hole” in the Arctic) and also more variable and harder to predict accurately. Projections of future

emissions from HCFCs covered a range of scenarios.

179. The net effect of climate change on ozone recovery was hard to predict because the interactions

between ozone depletion and climate change were complex and had multiple effects. Increased

concentrations of greenhouse gases cooled the stratosphere and thus changed ozone levels, some

greenhouse gases also had direct impacts on ozone depletion, and most ozone-depleting substances were

themselves greenhouse gases. Combined with the uncertainty over future atmospheric makeup,

circulation and temperature, the ability to model future changes was not high.

B. Environmental Effects Assessment Panel

180. Ms Janet F. Bornman, co-chair of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, summarized

the main findings of the 2006 environmental effects assessment, which included the impacts of higher

levels of ultraviolet irradiation on human health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, biogeochemical

cycles, air quality and materials.

181. The assessment made it clear that higher levels of ultraviolet led to a rise in the incidence of

cataracts and inflammatory growths of the cornea, skin cancer and immunosuppression. Eye damage

could be exacerbated by climate change, which tended to lead to greater cloudiness and thus more

scattered and reflected radiation; combined with the relaxation of the eyes under clouds, this could

increase cataracts and sunburn of the eyes. Skin cancer rates were projected to double for fair-skinned

populations between 2000 and 2015 and the incidence of melanoma was still rising in children.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

28

Susceptibility appeared to be linked to gene variations. Immunosuppression was a key factor in skin

cancer development and could also lead to viral reactivation and reduced vaccine effectiveness, which

was important because some viruses were co-factors for certain skin cancers. On the other hand,

ultraviolet radiation encouraged the production of vitamin D in the skin, which was thought to play a

protective role against the development of several internal cancers and other diseases.

182. Increased levels of ultraviolet also had impacts on terrestrial ecosystems, including reduced

plant growth, changes in the competitive balance between species, as some species were more sensitive

to ultraviolet than others, and a reduced consumption of plant tissues by insects. Those impacts were

also exacerbated by the higher temperatures, moisture levels and carbon dioxide concentrations

consequent to climate change, as well as by the increased use of nitrogen in agriculture.

183. Aquatic ecosystems were similarly affected, with potential negative impacts on biomass

productivity throughout the food web. The impacts on community structure could be more ecologically

important than those on overall biomass. The amount of dissolved organic matter in water, which in turn

influenced ultraviolet penetration, was also affected, with consequences for aquatic biogeochemical

processes. Again there might be important interactions with climate change, including a reduced sink

capacity for atmospheric carbon dioxide and an increase in natural emissions of methyl bromide from

plants at higher temperatures.

184. Ultraviolet radiation also increased the production of ozone in the troposphere, though that was

partly offset by reduced transport of ozone from the stratosphere to the troposphere. The rapid rise in

emissions of HFC-134a and of perfluoropolyethers, the latter of which had been proposed as HCFC

substitutes, could have major impacts on climate change. Finally, materials such as plastics and wood

could be degraded by ultraviolet radiation; that could be offset by stabilizers and surface coatings, but

those were often expensive.

C. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

185. Mr. Kuijpers summarized the Panel’s work during the past year. The 2006 assessment would

be finalized by the end of 2006 and the three Panels would collaborate to produce a synthesis report in

spring 2007.

186. Key findings of the assessment included the fact that CFC and halon consumption in 2005 was

below 5 per cent of the baselines established in 1986. The phase-out of HCFCs in non-Article 5 Parties

had been achieved in several sectors and regions but the growth of HCFC use in Article 5 Parties was

still strong. Banks of both CFCs and halons were still substantial and banks of HCFCs were continuing

to grow. For methyl bromide, the critical-use process was assisting in phase-out of methyl bromide but

quarantine and pre-shipment uses were increasing; the Panel had accordingly established a task force to

monitor and evaluate options for reducing consumption.

187. The Panel’s task force on emissions discrepancies, established in response to decision XVII/19,

had proceeded, with excellent cooperation from the Scientific Assessment Panel, in clarifying the

source of the discrepancy between emissions determined from bottom-up methods and those derived

from atmospheric measurements. There appeared to be three main contributors to the discrepancy:

reporting gaps and a lack of use-pattern definitions in the data reported to the Secretariat; uncertainties

in the variation of emission factors over time; and atmospheric removal rates. No single source was

likely to account for the whole discrepancy.

188. Further to decision XV/11, the Halons Technical Options Committee had been working with

the International Civil Aviation Organization on a plan of action to modify regulatory requirements

mandating the use of halons in new airframes, but serious delays had occurred owing to the retirement

of the ICAO contact person, which had disrupted the relationship between the committee and the

organization. If that relationship could not be re-established, it might not be possible to influence the

design of new airframe fire protection systems until the ICAO Assembly session in 2010. The Ozone

Secretariat would accordingly attempt to renew its links to the organization.

189. Reorganization of the technical options committees was continuing in order to meet the

requests of the Parties and the meeting was requested to confirm Mr Biao Jiang (China) as the Article 5

Co-Chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee. Nominations for experts were sought from

under-represented regions, with the full details being available on the Secretariat’s website. Mr Kuijpers

concluded by observing that 2006 had been a particularly busy year for the Panel and its technical

options committees, whose members together had devoted more than 4,000 person-days to their work

on behalf of the Protocol.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

29

IV. Presentations on the work of the Executive Committee of the

Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol,

the Multilateral Fund secretariat and the Fund’s implementing

agencies

A. Presentation by the Chair of the Executive Committee

190. Mr. Khaled Klaly, Chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the

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

Committee since the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties in November 2005, summarizing the report

contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/8. The Committee had held its forty-eighth and forty-ninth

meetings in Montreal in April and July 2006. It had approved a total of 142 projects with a funding

commitment of $95.5 million, which, when implemented, would phase out 23,037 ODP-tonnes of

ozone-depleting substance consumption and production.

191. He recalled that the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties had agreed on a replenishment of the

Multilateral Fund of $470 million for the triennium 2006–2008. In programming resources for the

period the Committee had prioritized assistance to Article 5 Parties to help them meet the 2007

compliance targets. The Committee pursued a vigorous programme of monitoring and evaluation to

ensure that projects were effectively implemented and met their agreed targets, thereby fostering a

climate of achievement among beneficiary countries and implementing agencies. An improved data

collection system allowed for better monitoring of the current actual use of ozone-depleting substances

and increased understanding of the problems being experienced by Article 5 Parties in complying with

Protocol targets.

192. The Committee had requested the Fund secretariat to present a revised policy paper on

CFC-based metered-dose inhalers to the Committee at its fifty-first meeting, taking into account any

new information and the implications of any decisions made by the Parties at the current meeting. Most

Article 5 Parties had written agreements for the complete phase-out of production of all ozone-depleting

substances and the phase-out in consumption was steadily increasing as further reduction targets

approached.

193. Despite those successes, he continued, a number of challenges remained. The issue of

destruction of unwanted ozone-depleting substances continued to concern Article 5 Parties and the

Committee had convened a meeting of experts to address the issue in March 2006. The Committee had

also begun to look at the complex issue of how to address HCFCs but was dependent upon the

willingness of Parties to move ahead and on the outcome of discussions on the future of the Protocol

and its Multilateral Fund.

194. In conclusion, he said that much work remained to be done: over 38,000 ODP-tonnes of

consumption and 40,000 ODP-tonnes of production remained to be phased out from projects and

activities already approved and undergoing implementation. Nevertheless, the 15th year of the

Multilateral Fund and the forthcoming fiftieth meeting of the Executive Committee were milestones to

be celebrated and were a mark of the success of the Protocol’s financial mechanism.

B. Presentation by the United Nations Development Programme

195. Ms. Suely Carvalho, Chief of the Montreal Protocol Unit/Chemicals, delivering an address on

behalf of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said that the Montreal Protocol was an

excellent example of the achievements that could result from adoption of a partnership approach to

sustainable environmental management. UNDP was committed to advancing the goals of the major

environmental agreements, including the Protocol, and supported countries in reconciling global

challenges with national priorities and translating multilateral agreements into action and, ultimately,

meaningful change in the lives of people. With the backing of the Protocol’s Multilateral Fund, UNDP

had over the last 15 years operationalized programmes in 94 countries that had helped to phase out

about 57,000 tons of ozone-depleting substances.

196. The Montreal Protocol, she continued, was central to the international development agenda and

was particularly relevant to poor and marginalized groups, often the most vulnerable to environmental

deterioration. The key challenges being faced by Parties as the Protocol approached its twentieth

anniversary offered an opportunity to strengthen environmental protection and enhance partnership
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

30

through accelerated commitment to non-ozone-depleting, energy-efficient alternatives and enhanced

synergy within the context of the global chemicals and climate agendas. Such an evolution of the

Montreal Protocol would be aligned with the efforts under way to bring about a more cohesive United

Nations development system. UNDP looked forward to responding to the changing needs of the

Protocol and continuing to serve the interests of the Parties.

C. Presentation by the United Nations Environment Programme

197. Mr. Rajendra Shende, Head of the OzonAction Programme, UNEP Division of Technology,

Industry and Economics, delivering an address on behalf of UNEP, outlined the assistance given by

UNEP to help developing countries achieve their phase-out targets for ozone-depleting substances

through its OzonAction and Compliance Assistance programmes. He drew attention to the high levels

of compliance that had been achieved by the low-volume consuming countries. UNEP had had

significant success in leveraging additional finance through working with bilateral agencies.

198. As well as working with the other implementing agencies UNEP had collaborated with a

number of other international organizations to enhance the impact of activities under the Multilateral

Fund, for example with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on methyl

bromide phase-out. UNEP had also used its leverage to form partnerships that had benefited the ozone

layer, including the SolarChill project and the Green Customs initiative.

199. In conclusion, he said that UNEP OzonAction would assist countries in sustaining momentum

and achieving compliance through mainstreaming policies on ozone-depleting substances in national

environmental policies and institutionalizing them at the national and regional levels.

D. Presentation by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization

200. Mr. Sidi Menad Si Ahmed, Director of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements Branch,

delivering an address on behalf of UNIDO, said that since its inception as an implementing agency in

1992, UNIDO had assisted 67 Article 5 Parties, with 885 projects completed and over 33,000

ODP-tonnes of ozone-depleting substances phased out. New projects were planned in the metered-dose

inhaler, chiller and HCFC sectors in the near future.

201. Priority was being given, he continued, to countries in need of immediate assistance to achieve

their consumption and production reduction obligations, particularly in 2005 and 2007. In the triennium

2006–2008 particular attention would be given to the implementation of already approved multi-year

agreements; UNIDO was strengthening its field representation to assist with that process. In cooperation

with UNEP, new terminal phase-out management plans were being prepared and Governments were

being assisted to put in place legislation and other measures for the control of ozone-depleting

substances.

E. Presentation by the World Bank

202. Mr Steve Gorman, Executive Coordinator, World Bank-GEF, in his address on behalf of the

World Bank, said that the 50 per cent CFC-reduction target under the Montreal Protocol was a critical

benchmark for Article 5 Parties and that it would serve as an indicator of the likelihood that Parties

would comply with the rapidly approaching targets in 2007 and 2010. With the assistance of the

Multilateral Fund, all countries undertaking phase-out projects with the World Bank had met their 2005

Protocol targets for the controlled substances covered.

203. By the end of 2005, multilateral fund projects being implemented under the Bank’s auspices

had resulted in reductions of over 200,000 ODP-tonnes, 84 per cent of the total ozone-depleting

substances to be phased out by the Bank for Fund projects. Through the Global Environment Facility,

the Bank also assisted countries with economies in transition to phase out CFC baseline consumption

and production. Those achievements were accomplished through both stand-alone projects and national

and sector phase-out plans under the Fund’s strategic approach, and the current focus was on

implementation of those plans. Factors helping countries to achieve their targets included flexibility of

approach to activities and innovate subsidy distribution enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to

be reached.

204. A crucial stage would be reached in the coming year with significant CFC consumption

reductions expected and it was important to maintain momentum with accelerated HCFC phase-out.

Measures to protect the ozone layer would benefit greatly from a multi-sectoral approach at the national
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

31

level and improved synergies between the Montreal Protocol and other multilateral environment

agreements.

V. Statements by heads of delegations

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

of the following Parties, listed in the order in which they spoke: Canada, India, Democratic Republic of

the Congo, Sri Lanka, United Republic of Tanzania, Guinea, Dominican Republic, Finland (in its

capacity as Presidency of the European Union), European Community, Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Mauritius, Uruguay, United States of America, Japan, Haiti, Togo, Malaysia, Burundi, China, Fiji,

Rwanda, Uganda, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ghana, Pakistan, Syrian Arab Republic, Cameroon,

Trinidad and Tobago, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, Bhutan, Georgia, Indonesia, the Philippines,

Brazil, Mexico, Sudan, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Turkey.

206. Statements were also made by representatives of the following intergovernmental and

non-governmental organizations: International Institute of Refrigeration, Greenpeace International and

Environmental Investigation Agency.

207. All speakers expressed their gratitude to the Government and people of India for their warm

hospitality and the arrangements for the current meeting. They also congratulated the newly elected

members of the Bureau and thanked the Ozone Secretariat, the Multilateral Fund Secretariat and its

implementing agencies, the donor countries and other partners for their contribution to the successful

implementation of the Montreal Protocol.

208. Many Parties outlined the status of their countries’ ratification of the ozone instruments and

their efforts to implement them. Among the wide range of activities brought up by the speakers were the

adoption and enforcement of regulations and of plans of action to implement their obligations under the

ozone treaties; the establishment of licensing systems to control trade in ozone-depleting substances; the

training of customs and other officials to tackle illegal trade in such substances; the use of fiscal

incentives and other measures to promote the development of non-ozone-depleting-substance

technologies; and the phasing out of the domestic production and consumption of ozone-depleting

substances, in some cases ahead of schedule. Several Article 5 Parties paid tribute to the Multilateral

Fund and its implementing agencies, noting that its assistance had been instrumental in helping them

fulfil their obligations under the Protocol. Many of them stated, however, that they would require the

continued assistance of the Fund to achieve all of the Protocol’s targets, including the complete

phase-out of CFCs by 2010 and the early phase-out of other ozone-depleting substances. A few

non-Article 5 Parties reiterated their commitment to continue providing financial and technical

assistance to Article 5 Parties in support of their efforts to comply with their obligations under the

Protocol.

209. Many speakers affirmed that the Montreal Protocol was a model of international cooperation

and remained among the most successful multilateral environmental agreements. Notwithstanding the

progress achieved, however, many pointed to the multiple challenges ahead and the need to avoid

falling into complacency. A number of speakers expressed concern at the latest scientific information on

the state of the ozone layer, which indicated that there would be a fifteen-year delay in its recovery. One

speaker, however, said that the change in the projected date of recovery was mostly due to a better

understanding of the way in which the atmosphere worked. Another said that the record levels reported

could be attributed to the long life of CFCs.

210. Some Article 5 Parties identified the phase-out of CFCs in metered-dose inhalers as a serious

problem facing developing countries and called for greater efforts to develop and transfer appropriate

technologies on concessional terms to enable Article 5 Parties to manufacture low cost CFC-free

metered-dose inhalers. A few delegates also stressed the need to strike a balance between environmental

protection and public health in the transition to CFC-free metered-dose inhalers.

211. Many speakers drew attention to the problem of illegal trade, with some of them calling for

financial and technical assistance to combat it. One Article 5 Party said that the efforts of any single

country to combat illegal trade were insufficient and that international cooperation and concerted efforts

by all Parties and relevant international organizations were required, among other things, to promote the

exchange of information, establish international monitoring networks and punish the perpetrators in the

countries involved. Another speaker expressed support for the development of a system for tracking

international trade in ozone-depleting substances and for the study that had been conducted on the

feasibility of developing such a system.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

32

212. Several Article 5 Parties stressed the need to ensure the sound destruction or disposal of

ozone-depleting substance stockpiles and banks in developing countries, with some noting that the task

would demand additional financial resources and technology. Two Article 5 Parties said that the sound

destruction of stockpiles was especially urgent in low-volume consuming countries such as small

islands in the Pacific. One Article 5 Party called for the adoption of a decision to promote the

establishment of regional facilities for the sound destruction of refrigerants and other equipment

containing ozone-depleting substances in developing countries and for appropriate mechanisms to

ensure their safe transportation.

213. A number of speakers highlighted the use of methyl bromide in quarantine and pre-shipment

applications as a significant challenge. One non-governmental organization said that such applications

threatened to undermine the Protocol’s controls on methyl bromide and stressed the need to investigate

their scale fully. One delegate urged the allocation of increased funds for methyl bromide phase-out

projects and another stressed the need for increased cooperation with the International Plant Protection

Convention. Others emphasized the need to ensure the continuous reduction of critical and essential use

exemptions in order to achieve the final goal of total elimination.

214. Many speakers drew attention to the linkages between the ozone regime and other

environmental treaties, stressing the need to build synergies and coordination between related

multilateral environmental agreements. Some highlighted in particular the need to achieve greater

coordination between the ozone and climate change regimes, to reach a better understanding of the

interactions between ozone and climate and to adopt policy measures under both regimes that would

benefit the ozone layer and the Earth’s climate. In that context, one speaker expressed concern at the

conclusion of a recent study by the Environmental Investigation Agency that the greenhouse effect of

HCFCs and HFC emissions could be equivalent to the total emissions of greenhouse gases of the

European Union by 2015. Supported by others, she called for the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs in

Article 5 countries, arguing that it should be fully funded by the Protocol. Others drew attention to the

sharp increase of HCFC use in refrigerants in Article 5 Parties and said that assistance should be

provided to those Parties to ensure a smooth transition to ozone friendly and climate friendly

alternatives. One Article 5 Party proposed that a study should be conducted by one of the Protocol’s

assessment panels to advise Article 5 Parties how to deal with their increased consumption of HCFCs.

215. The representative of a non-governmental organization claimed that the inordinate influence of

multinational chemical corporations on the Protocol had led to the promotion of HCFC and HFC use by

the multilateral fund and its implementing agencies. Thus, while commending the calls for an early

phase-out of HCFCs, he expressed concern that it might lead to an excessive use of HFCs and called on

the Parties to address squarely the “chemical dependency” of the planet rather than merely facilitate the

shift from one chemical to another.

216. Many speakers said that the coming twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol would

provide the Parties with a unique opportunity to start debating the Protocol’s future and commended

Canada’s proposal to commence those discussions. In that context, the representative of Canada

conveyed his Government’s offer to host the celebration of the Protocol’s twentieth anniversary and the

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties.

217. The representative of a regional economic integration organization drew attention to the wider

issue of environmental policy, which he noted was being reviewed by the United Nations General

Assembly. He expressed support for transforming the United Nations Environment Programme into a

United Nations specialized agency, noting that a stronger and well-funded agency would be best able to

respond to current global environmental challenges.One representative noted that his country faced a

difficult political situation, in the light of which he proposed a revision of its reduction targets for

phasing out ozone-depleting substances that would see a reduction of controlled substances by 50

percent in 2007 and 85% in 2009 and their total elimination in 2011.

VI. Report of the Co-Chairs of the preparatory segment and

consideration of the decisions recommended for adoption by the

Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

218. The Co-Chairs of the preparatory segment reported to the Parties during the high-level segment

on the main issues covered in the deliberations of the preparatory segment, reviewed the draft decisions

that were still outstanding and drew attention to the draft decisions which had been approved for

transmission to the high-level segment.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

33

VII. Dates and venue for the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol

219. As noted above, during the statements by ministers and other heads of delegations, the

representative of Canada conveyed his Government’s offer to host the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties

and the celebrations of the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. The Parties warmly

welcomed Canada’s offer.

VIII.Other matters

220. No other matters were raised.

IX. Adoption of decisions by the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol

221. The Meeting of the Parties decides:

Decision XVIII/1: Membership of the Implementation Committee

1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee under the

Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol in the year 2006;

2. To confirm the positions of Argentina, Lebanon, New Zealand, Nigeria and Poland as

members of the Committee for one further year and to select Bolivia, Georgia, India, Tunisia and the

Netherlands as members of the Committee for a two-year period from 1 January 2007;

3. To note the selection of New Zealand to serve as President and of Tunisia to serve as

Vice-President and Rapporteur, respectively, of the Implementation Committee for one year with effect

from 1 January 2007;

Decision XVIII/2: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral

Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol

1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral

Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with the assistance of the Fund secretariat in the

year 2006;

2. To endorse the selection of Canada, Sweden, Czech Republic, Japan, United States of

America, Belgium and Italy as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating

under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Sudan, Guinea, Mexico, Saint Lucia,

Uruguay, Jordan and China as members representing Parties operating under that paragraph, for one

year with effect from 1 January 2007;

3. To note the selection of Mr. Phillipe Chemouny (Canada) to serve as Chair and

Mr. Nimaga Mamadou (Guinea) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year with

effect from 1 January 2007;

Decision XVIII/3: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to

the Montreal Protocol

To endorse the selection of Ms. Marcia Levaggi (Argentina) and Mr. Mikkel Aaman Sorensen

(Denmark) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for

2007;

Decision XVIII/4: Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee

To confirm Mr. Biao Jiang (China) as co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

34

Decision XVIII/5: Financial matters: financial reports and budgets

Recalling decision XVII/42 on financial matters,

Noting the financial report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that

Deplete the Ozone Layer for the biennium 2004–2005 ended 31 December 20053;

Recognizing that voluntary contributions are an essential complement for the effective

implementation of the Protocol;

Welcoming the continued efficient management demonstrated by the Secretariat of the finances

of the Trust Fund;

1. To approve the 2007 budget for the Trust Fund in the amount of $4,671,933 and to take

note of the proposed 2008 budget of $4,542,563, as set out in annex I to the report of the Eighteenth

Meeting of the Parties4;

2. To authorize the Secretariat to draw down $395,000 in 2007;

3. To approve, as a consequence of the draw-down referred to in paragraph 2 above, total

contributions to be paid by the Parties at $4,276,933 for 2007 and note the contribution of $4,542,563

for 2008, as set out in annex I to the report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol;

4. Also to approve that the contributions of individual Parties shall be listed in annex II to

the report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties;

5. To authorize the Secretariat to maintain a constant operating cash reserve of the

estimated annual planned expenditures that will be used to meet the final expenditures under the trust

fund. In 2006, the Parties agree to maintain the approved budget for the operating cash reserve for 2007

at 8.3 per cent and contribute 3 per cent of the budget for the cash operating reserve in 2008, after which

time the Parties will strive to achieve and maintain an operating cash reserve of 15 per cent;

6. To express its concern over delays in payment of the agreed contributions by Parties,

contrary to the provisions of the terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Fund for the

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of

those terms of reference;

7. To urge all Parties to pay their contributions promptly and in full and further to urge

Parties that have not done so to pay their contributions for prior years as soon as possible;

8. To encourage Parties, non-Parties, and other stakeholders to contribute financially and

with other means to assist members in the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies for their

continued participation in the assessment activities under the Protocol;

9. To invite Parties to notify the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol of all contributions

made to the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund at the time such payments are made;

10. In accordance with rule 14 of the rules of procedure, to request the Executive Secretary

to provide Parties with an indication of the financial implications of draft decisions which cannot be met

from existing resources within the budget of the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund;

11. To request that the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol ensure its implementation of

secretariat-related decisions adopted by the Meeting of the Parties as approved, within the budgets and

the availability of financial resources in the Trust Fund;

12. In recognition of the likely increased expenses during 2007 related to activities

surrounding the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, to allow the

Secretariat to have full flexibility, in 2007 only, to make transfers between budget lines that it believes

are necessary to fund celebration-related activities, including lines 5200 (reporting), 5304 (International

Ozone Day, twentieth anniversary activities) 5401 (hospitality) and 3300 (support for participation).

After 2007, the normal allowance to transfer funds of up to 20 per cent from one main appropriation

line of the approved budget to other main appropriation lines will apply. In addition, the Secretariat is

authorized to fund the above-noted lines with any unspent participation funds which have accrued or

may accrue as a result of travel cancellations by participants;

3 UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/4 and Add.1.

4 UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

35

13. To request the Secretariat to inform the Open-ended Working Group on all sources of

income received, including the reserve and fund balance and interest, as well as actual and projected

expenditures and commitments and to request the Executive Secretary to provide an indicative report on

all expenditures against budget lines;

14. Also to request the Open-ended Working Group to keep under review the financial

information provided by the Secretariat, including the timeliness and transparency of that information.

Decision XVIII/6: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol

and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Protocol

1. To note with satisfaction the large number of countries that have ratified the Vienna

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete

the Ozone Layer;

2. To note that, as of 30 October 2006, 184 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to

the Montreal Protocol, 175 Parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol,

and 149 Parties had ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, while only 118 Parties

had ratified the Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol;

3. To urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna

Convention and the Montreal Protocol and its amendments, taking into account that universal

participation is necessary to ensure the protection of the ozone layer;

Decision XVIII/7: Essential-use exemptions for Parties not operating under

paragraph 1 of Article 5 for controlled substances for 2007 and 2008

Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

and its Medical Technical Options Committee,

Taking into account the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s expectation that

production of metered-dose inhalers containing chlorofluorocarbons should cease by the end of 2009

and, based on its analysis and monitoring of the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free treatments of

asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease over the last decade, the Panel’s assessment that

global phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers will be achievable by 2010,

Considering the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel's conclusion that technically

satisfactory alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers are available for

short-acting beta-agonists and other therapeutic categories for asthma and chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease,

Mindful that, according to decision IV/25, chlorofluorocarbon use for metered-dose inhalers

shall not qualify as essential if technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes are

available that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health,

Welcoming the fact that the United States has demonstrated its commitment in its domestic

process to allocate only the minimal amount necessary to protect public health, having issued a

proposed regulation that would allocate 125.3 tons for 2007,

Mindful that paragraph 8 of decision XII/2 allows the transfer of chlorofluorocarbons between

metered-dose inhaler companies,

1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption for 2007 and 2008 necessary to

satisfy essential uses of chlorofluorocarbons for the production of metered-dose inhalers for asthma and

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease specified in annex III to the present report;

2. That Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, when

licensing, authorizing, or allocating essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons for a

manufacturer of metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, shall

take into account pre- and post-1996 stocks of controlled substances as described in paragraph 1 (b) of

decision IV/25, such that no more than a one-year operational supply is maintained by the manufacturer;

3. That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request companies applying for

metered-dose inhaler essential use exemptions to demonstrate that they are making efforts, with all due

diligence, on research and development with respect to chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives to their
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

36

products and are diligently seeking approval of their chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives in their

domestic and export markets aimed at transitioning those markets away from the chlorofluorocarbon

products;

Decision XVIII/8: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for

aerospace applications in the Russian Federation for 2007

Recalling that the Russian Federation has submitted a nomination for an essential-use exemption

for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace applications in the Russian Federation,

Noting that the nomination by the Russian Federation was submitted on 15 April 2006, several

weeks after the deadline required for the essential use exemption process set out in decision IV/25,

Regretting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical

Options Committee were not provided sufficient time to review that nomination in detail and report to

the Parties three months ahead of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties in accordance with the time

schedule prescribed,

Recalling that consultations took place between the Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel and the Russian Federation during the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group

and thereafter and that, following such consultations, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

stated in its May 2006 progress report that Parties might wish to consider granting the Russian

Federation a one-year essential use exemption,

Taking into account the information already made available by the Russian Federation in

relation to its nomination for an essential use exemption for aerospace applications, which contains data

on the anticipated gradual reduction of the Party’s expected needs until 2010,

Recalling that the Russian Federation has indicated that the amount of ozone-depleting

substances being used for aerospace applications has been constantly decreasing owing to research into

and transition to alternative ozone-safe substances and technologies and that the amount of

chlorofluorocarbon-113 being used has been reduced from 241 metric tonnes in 2001 to 160 metric

tonnes in 2006,

1. To permit the Russian Federation a level of production and consumption of 150 metric

tonnes of chlorofluorocarbon-113 for its essential use in the aerospace industry of the Russian

Federation in 2007;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals

Technical Options Committee to complete a comprehensive assessment of the information made

available in the nomination submitted by the Russian Federation and, on the basis of any additional

information that may be required from the Russian Federation, to conclude its analysis taking into

account that the information underlying such analysis should address comprehensively the reason why

existing alternatives to CFC-113 would not be applied for the use concerned;

3. To call upon the Russian Federation to continue to cooperate closely with the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee further

to the present decision and to submit, in accordance with the requirements of the Technology and

Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee, the additional detailed

technical information mentioned in paragraph 2 on the use of chlorofluorocarbon-113 that may be

required until the completion of the assessment;

4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals

Technical Options Committee to review all the information provided, as specified in paragraphs 2 and

3, and present the results of that review to the Open-Ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh

meeting, in 2007;

5. To call upon the Russian Federation:

(a) To consider further the use of foreign sources of chlorofluorocarbon-113 stockpiles

identified by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options

Committee as a contribution for addressing the needs mentioned under paragraph 1 or any possible

future needs;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

37

(b) To consider further the possibility of, and a timetable for, introducing the use of any new

alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-113 that become available and to continue its research and

development activities with a view to finding new alternatives;

6. To further call upon the Russian Federation to provide in due time to the Technology

and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee, for the purpose of

any future nomination of that Party for essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbon-113 in relation

to aerospace applications, comprehensive information in accordance with the conditions set out in

decision IV/25;

7. To take into consideration the outcome of the continued consultations mentioned in

paragraphs 2 to 4 between the Russian Federation and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee on the amount authorized for essential uses in 2007, in

reviewing any possible additional nomination by the Russian Federation for aerospace applications for

2008;

Decision XVIII/9: Review of draft terms of reference for case studies called for

under decision XVII/17 on environmentally sound destruction of ozone-depleting

substances

Noting decision XVII/17, in which the Parties requested the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel to prepare terms of reference for the conduct of case studies in Parties operating

under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, with regional representation, on the technology

and costs associated with a process for the replacement of chlorofluorocarbon-containing refrigeration

and air-conditioning equipment, including the environmentally sound recovery, transport and final

disposal of such equipment and of the associated chlorofluorocarbons,

Noting that the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the

Montreal Protocol, pursuant to its decision 46/36, is considering terms of reference, a budget and

modalities for a study on collection, recovery, recycling, reclamation, transportation and destruction of

unwanted ozone-depleting substances,

Noting also decision 49/36 of the Executive Committee, in which the Executive Committee

expresses its willingness to develop consolidated terms of reference and initiate a study accordingly,

1. To request the Executive Committee to develop consolidated terms of reference taking

into account the elements referred to in both the draft terms of reference submitted to the Eighteenth

Meeting of the Parties pursuant to decision XVII/17 and the terms of reference developed by the

Multilateral Fund secretariat on the collection, recovery, recycling, reclamation, transportation, and

destruction of unwanted ozone-depleting substances;

2. To request the Executive Committee to conduct, as soon as possible, a study based on

the resulting terms of reference and to provide a progress report to the Nineteenth Meeting of Parties,

with a final report for consideration at the twenty-eighth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;

Decision XVIII/10: Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities

for reductions

Noting with appreciation the information presented by the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee in its May 2006 progress report,

Mindful of the obligations to ensure control measures under Article 2D of the Montreal Protocol

regarding production and consumption of carbon tetrachloride,

Desiring to reduce emissions to background concentration levels, encourage earlier adaptation

of ozone-safe alternatives and set limits on emissions that occur during interim use,

Expressing concern regarding the large discrepancy in reported emissions and observed

atmospheric concentrations, which clearly indicates that emissions from industrial activity are being

significantly underestimated (as of 2002 they were still in the order of 70,000 tonnes (plus or minus

6,000 tonnes)),
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

38

1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue its assessment

of global emissions of carbon tetrachloride, as set out in decision XVI/14 and other related decisions

such as decision XVII/19, paragraph 6, paying particular attention:

(a) To obtaining better data for industrial emissions to enable resolution of the significant

discrepancy with atmospheric measurements;

(b) To further investigating issues related to production of carbon tetrachloride (including

its production as a by-product and its subsequent use, storage, recycling or destruction);

(c) To estimating emissions from other sources such as landfills;

2. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel prepare a final report

on the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 in time for the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended

Working Group for the consideration of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007;

Decision XVIII/11: Sources of n-propyl bromide emissions, alternatives available

and opportunities for reductions

Noting with appreciation the information presented by the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee in its May 2006 progress report,

Mindful of the options to include new substances as controlled substances in the Montreal

Protocol, and in particular of decision XIII/7, requesting Parties to urge industry and users to consider

limiting the use of n-propyl bromide to applications for which more economically feasible and

environmentally friendly alternatives are not available,

Desiring to obtain more specific information on use categories and emissions of n-propyl

bromide to allow Parties to consider further steps regarding n-propyl bromide, in the light of available

alternatives,

1. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel to update existing information on the ozone

depletion potential of n-propyl bromide, including ozone depleting potential depending on the location

of the emissions and the season in the hemisphere at that location;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue its assessment

of global emissions of n-propyl bromide, as set out in decision XIII/7, paying particular attention to:

(a) Obtaining more complete data on production and uses of n-propyl bromide as well as

emissions of n-propyl bromide from those sources;

(b) Providing further information on the technological and economical availability of

alternatives for the different use categories of n-propyl bromide and information on the toxicity of and

regulations on the substitutes for n-propyl bromide;

(c) Presenting information on the ozone depletion potential of the substances for which

n-propyl bromide is used as a replacement;

3. To request that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel prepare a report on the

assessment referred to in paragraph 1 in time for the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended

Working Group for the consideration of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties.

Decision XVIII/12: Future work following the Ozone Secretariat workshop on the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel special report

Recalling decision XVII/19 which requested the Ozone Secretariat to organize an experts

workshop on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel special report in the margins of the twenty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in

2006,

Noting with appreciation Parties' submissions for the list of practical measures as well as the

preparations of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for the workshop,

Noting with appreciation the report of the workshop provided by the Ozone Secretariat,
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

39

Noting with appreciation the summary of Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2006 , and

its options on additional measures to accelerate the recovery, but further noting with concern better

scientific understanding now suggests a 10 to 15 year later return of chlorine levels to pre-1980 values

in the atmosphere,

Noting with appreciation the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Task

Force on Emission Discrepancies,

Mindful that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol

should phase out consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by 2030 and freeze production by 2004 and

that the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 should phase out consumption of

hydrochlorofluorocarbons by 2040 and freeze production by 2016,

Aware of the potential implications of Clean Development Mechanism projects in

hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 production facilities,

Acknowledging, therefore, that further work needs to be done to reach the targets of the Vienna

Convention and the Montreal Protocol for recovery of the ozone layer,

1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to further assess the

measures listed in the report of Ozone Secretariat workshop on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change/Technology and Economic Assessment Panel special report, in the light of current and expected

trends of ozone-depleting substance production and consumption and with a focus on

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, taking into account timing, feasibility and environmental benefits in Parties

operating under Article 5 and Parties not operating under Article 5 of the Protocol;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide information on

current and future demand for, and supply of, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, giving full consideration to the

influence of the Clean Development Mechanism on hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 production, as well as

on the availability of alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbons;

3. To request the Ozone Secretariat to facilitate consultations, as appropriate, by the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel with relevant organizations, namely, the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, the Executive Board of Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and the

secretariat of the Multilateral Fund, to enable the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to draw

on the work already carried out under these organizations, including any work relating to

hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22, and consider, in cooperation with the Scientific Assessment Panel, the

implications of these findings for the recovery of the ozone layer;

4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report its findings on the

issues mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 above to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh

meeting for consideration, with a view to providing a final report to the Nineteenth Meeting of the

Parties.

Decision XVIII/13: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2007 and

2008

Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee,

Noting with appreciation that some Parties have made substantial reductions in the quantities of

methyl bromide authorized, permitted or licensed for 2006 and have significantly reduced the quantities

requested,

Noting that Parties submitting requests for methyl bromide for 2007 have supported their

requests with a management strategy as required under decision Ex.I/4,

1. For the agreed critical-use categories for 2007, set forth in table A of the annex to the

present decision for each Party, to permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and

decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and

consumption for 2007 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision which are necessary to

satisfy critical uses, in addition to the amounts permitted in decision XVII/9;

2. For the agreed critical-use categories for 2008 set forth in table C of the annex to the

present decision for each Party to permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

40

in decision Ex.I/4, to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and

consumption for 2008 set forth in table D of the annex to the present decision which are necessary to

satisfy critical uses, with the understanding that additional levels of production and consumption and

categories of uses may be approved by the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in

accordance with decision IX/6;

3. That when assessing supplemental requests for critical use exemptions for 2008 for a

specific nomination, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should take into account the most

current information, including any information on domestic implementation of related 2007 and 2008

critical uses, in accordance with paragraph 2 of decision IX/6;

4. That a Party with a critical use exemption level in excess of permitted levels of

production and consumption for critical uses is to make up any such differences between those levels by

using quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized to be available;

5. That Parties shall endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of

critical-use methyl bromide as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present decision;

6. That each Party which has an agreed critical use renews its commitment to ensure that

the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision IX/6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing critical

use of methyl bromide and, in particular, the criterion laid down in paragraph 1(b) (ii) of decision IX/6.

Each Party is requested to report on the implementation of the present paragraph to the Ozone

Secretariat by 1 February for the years to which this decision applies;

7. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to publish annually in its

progress report beginning in 2007 and prior to each Open-ended Working Group meeting the stocks of

methyl bromide held by each nominating Party as reported in its accounting framework report;

8. That Parties licensing, permitting or authorizing methyl bromide that is used for 2008

critical uses shall request the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable

films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote

environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible;

9. That each Party should continue to ensure that its national management strategy for the

phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide addresses the aims specified in paragraph 3 of

decision Ex.I/4.

Annex to decision XVIII/13

Critical-use exemptions for 2007 and 2008

Table A. 2007 agreed critical-use categories (metric tonnes)

Australia Cut flowers – bulbs – protected (3.598), Rice (4.075)

Canada Pasta (6.757), Strawberry runners (Ontario) (6.129)

France Chestnuts (1.800), Mills (8.000), Seeds (0.096), Carrots (1.400), Cucumbers (12.500), Cut

flowers and bulbs (9.600), Forest nurseries (1.500), Orchard & raspberry nurseries (2.000),

Orchard replant (7.000), Pepper (6.000), Strawberry runners (28.000)

Greece Dried fruit (0.450), Mills & processors (1.340)

Israel Dates (2.200), flour mills (1.040), broomrape (250.000), cucumber (25.000), cut-flowers –

bulbs – protected (220.185), cut-flowers – open field (74.540), fruit tree nurseries (7.500),

melon – protected & field (105.000), potato (137.500), strawberry runners (28.000),

strawberry fruit (93.000), tomato (22.750)

Italy Artefacts (5.000), Mills and processors (25.000), Cut flowers – protected (30.000), Melon –

protected (10.000), Pepper – protected (67.000), Strawberry runners (35.000), Tomatoes

protected (80.000)

Netherlands Strawberry runners (0.120)

New Zealand Strawberry runners (6.234), Strawberry fruit (12.000)
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

41

Poland Coffee & cocoa beans (1.420), Medicinal herbs and mushrooms (1.800), Strawberry runners

(24.500)

Spain Cut flowers (Andalucia & Catalonia) (43.490), Peppers (45.000), Strawberry fruit (0.0796 for

research), Strawberry runners (230.000)

United Kingdom Aircraft (0.165), Cereal processing plants (3.480), Cheese stores (1.248), 13 Mills (4.509),

Mills – Food processing (Biscuits) (0.479), Structures (Herbs & spices) (0.908), Structures

(Whitworth) (0.257)

Table B: 2007 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Australia 7.673

Canada 12.886

France * 77.896

Greece * 1.790

Israel 966.715

Italy * 252.000

Netherlands * 0.120

New Zealand 18.234

Poland * 27.720

Spain * 318.5696

United Kingdom * 11.046

* The production and consumption of the European Community shall not exceed 689.1416 metric

tonnes for the purposes of the agreed critical uses.

Table C: 2008 agreed critical-use categories (metric tonnes)

Australia Cut flowers – bulbs – protected (3.500), Rice (7.400 + 1.8*), Strawberry runners (35.750)

Canada Mills (28.650); Strawberry runners (Prince Edward Island) (7.462)

Japan Chestnuts (6.300), Cucumbers (51.450), Ginger – field (84.075), Ginger – protected

(11.100), Melon (136.650), Pepper green & hot (121.725), Watermelon (32.475)

United States of

America

Commodities (58.921), Cocoa beans (NPMA subset) (53.188), NPMA food processing

structures (cocoa beans removed) (69.208), Mills and processors (348.237), Smokehouse

ham (19.669), Cucurbits – field (486.757 ), Eggplant – field (66.018), Forest nursery

(131.208 ), Nursery stock – fruit, nut, flower (51.102), Orchard replant (393.720),

Ornamentals (138.538), Peppers – field (756.339), Strawberry – field (1,349.575),

Strawberry runners (8.838), Tomatoes – field (1,406.484), Sweet potato slips (18.144)

* All or part of the supplementary amount of 1.8 metric tonnes, if required, is conditional on the

Technical and Economic Assessment Panel’s recommendation in its 2007 progress report.

Table D: 2008 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes)

Australia 46.650 + 1.8*

Canada 36.112

Japan 443.775

United States of America 4,595.040

* All or part of the supplementary amount of 1.8 metric tonnes, if required, is conditional on the

Technical and Economic Assessment Panel’s recommendation in its 2007 progress report.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

42

Decision XVIII/14: Montreal Protocol/International Plant Protection Convention

cooperation on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine and

pre-shipment

Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

and its Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Task Force,

Mindful that in accordance with decisions VII/5 and XI/12 of the Meeting of the Parties

quarantine and pre-shipment treatments are authorized or performed by national plant, animal, health or

stored product authorities,

Noting that by its amendment to Article 7, paragraph 3, of the Montreal Protocol, the Eleventh

Meeting of the Parties required each Party to submit information to the Secretariat on the amount of

methyl bromide used annually for quarantine and pre-shipment applications,

Acknowledging that the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures adopts international standards

for phytosanitary measures under the International Plant Protection Convention, which is an

international treaty that aims to secure action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests affecting

plants and plant products and to promote appropriate measures for their control,

Taking into account that quarantine and pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide were

originally conceived to protect natural ecosystems and agriculture from the accidental introduction and

spread of such pests, including invasive alien species, while at the same time allowing trade,

Mindful that in decision XVII/15 the Parties request the Ozone Secretariat to liaise further with

the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, in consideration of the risk of depletion

of the ozone layer,

Recognizing the need to develop common solutions that minimize the use of methyl bromide for

quarantine and pre-shipment applications in a manner that is satisfactory for the ozone layer and also in

terms of phytosanitary protection,

1. To welcome proposals by the Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine of the International

Plant Protection Convention for closer cooperation between the International Plant Protection

Convention and the Montreal Protocol technical bodies and to encourage the Commission on

Phytosanitary Measures to consider approval of the recommendations from the Technical Panel on

Forest Quarantine on cooperation with the Protocol;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to cooperate with the

technical bodies of the International Plant Protection Convention with a view to:

(a) Ensuring that potentially duplicative activities are coordinated where practical and that

technical information is shared and jointly developed as appropriate;

(b) Identifying jointly technical and economic opportunities and constraints faced by

countries in the development and adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide for quarantine and

pre-shipment applications;

(c) Allowing the Quarantine and Pre-shipment Task Force to gather quantitative and to the

extent possible comprehensive information about the use of methyl bromide in quarantine and

pre-shipment activities by combining relevant data sets available to each respective technical body;

(d) Identifying jointly existing national plant, animal, environmental health and stored

product regulations that require or authorize the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment

applications;

(e) Providing practical technical guidance on technologies, systems and arrangements aimed

at minimizing emissions from methyl bromide fumigations to national plant protection organizations, as

is urged in decision XI/13;

3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report on the results of

its contacts and work described in paragraph 2 above in time for the twenty-seventh meeting of the

Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;

4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to continue liaising with the International Plant

Protection Convention secretariat as appropriate in line with decision XVII/15, to build on interactions

already developed, and to report comprehensively to the Parties on secretariat-level cooperation and

joint activities;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

43

5. To request the Secretariat to provide factual information on the definitions of quarantine

and pre-shipment under the Protocol and the International Plant Protection Convention;

6. To encourage national level officials working on Montreal Protocol and International

Plant Protection Convention issues to cooperate more closely to ensure that the objectives of both

agreements are being met when domestic actions are undertaken in relation to methyl bromide use for

quarantine and pre-shipment purposes and in the lead-up to future decision-making by Parties in both

multilateral agreements.

Decision XVIII/15: Laboratory and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide

Noting with appreciation the work undertaken by the Chemicals Technical Options Committee

and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee in considering, in accordance with

decision XVII/10, the relevance to laboratory and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide of the

categories of uses listed in annex IV to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties,5

Acknowledging that in decision VII/11, adopted in 1995, Parties were encouraged to identify

and review the use of ozone-depleting substances in order to adopt where possible ozone-depleting

substance-free technologies,

Noting that the aforementioned committees have reported that alternatives to methyl bromide

are available for many laboratory and analytical critical uses, including methylating agent uses,

Noting that the aforementioned committees were not in favour of classifying field trials using

methyl bromide as laboratory and analytical critical uses because of the impracticality and cost of using

a large number of small containers of 99 per cent pure methyl bromide and that Parties wishing to carry

out such field trials could submit critical-use nominations for that purpose,

Recognizing that some laboratory and analytical critical uses listed in the committees’ report are

applicable to both quarantine and pre-shipment and to feedstock uses, which are not controlled under

the Montreal Protocol,

1. To authorize, for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, the production

and consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E of the Protocol necessary to satisfy laboratory

and analytical critical uses and subject to the conditions established in paragraph 2 of the present

decision;

2. Subject to the conditions applied to the exemption for laboratory and analytical uses

contained in annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties6, to adopt a category of laboratory

and analytical critical use to allow methyl bromide to be used:

(a) As a reference or standard:

(i) To calibrate equipment which uses methyl bromide;

(ii) To monitor methyl bromide emission levels;

(iii) To determine methyl bromide residue levels in goods, plants and commodities;

(b) In laboratory toxicological studies;

(c) To compare the efficacy of methyl bromide and its alternatives inside a laboratory;

(d) As a laboratory agent which is destroyed in a chemical reaction in the manner of

feedstock;

3. That any decision taken pursuant to the present decision does not preclude a Party from

nominating a specific use under the critical use procedure described in decision IX/6.

5 UNEP/OzL.Pro.7/12.

6 UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/7, Annex II.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

44

Decision XVIII/16: Difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties manufacturing

metered-dose inhalers which use chlorofluorocarbons

Recognizing that Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 must reduce consumption of

Annex A, group I, controlled substances (chlorofluorocarbons) by 85 per cent of their baseline by 2007

and complete the phase-out of those substances by 1 January 2010, including chlorofluorocarbons used

in metered-dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

Bearing in mind that, according to paragraph 7 of decision IV/25, essential-use controls will not

be applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 until the phase-out dates applicable to

those Parties,

Recognizing the potential uncertainty of supplies of pharmaceutical grade chlorofluorocarbons

in the near future and the impact on people’s health and local businesses if national manufacturing

plants which depend on imports of those substances cannot predict their availability,

Aware that the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers in Parties not

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 is likely to be complete by the phase-out deadline for Parties

operating under Article 5 and that most of the metered-dose inhalers used by patients in many Parties

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 are imported from Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of

Article 5,

Acknowledging that some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 have adopted

metered-dose inhaler transition strategies, as encouraged by decision XII/2, but noting that most Parties

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 have yet to put in place national or regional transition

strategies and that Parties that produce metered-dose inhalers will be unable to finalize such strategies

unless technology conversion is included in their national plans,

Understanding, therefore, that there is a need for further measures to facilitate the transition to

non-chlorofluorocarbon treatments for asthma and obstructive pulmonary disease in Parties operating

under paragraph 1 of Article 5,

Mindful that in some cases a regional approach to transition may be the most efficient,

Noting that Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of article 5 have made substantial progress

in replacing chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers with alternative products but that at the

present time still require a limited amount of pharmaceutical grade chlorofluorocarbons to produce

metered-dose inhalers, as demonstrated by current essential-use exemption requests granted by the

Parties,

Taking into account that decision XVII/14 calls for the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to

consider taking a decision addressing the difficulties faced by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of

Article 5 on metered-dose inhaler transition,

1. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of

the Montreal Protocol to consider as a matter of urgency the funding of projects in relation to those

Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 that experience difficulties due to high consumption of

chlorofluorocarbons for manufacturing metered-dose inhalers, in order to facilitate the transition from

chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers;

2. To request the Executive Committee to consider within the context of the existing

Multilateral Fund guidelines to review its decision 17/7 with regard to the existing cut-off date for

consideration of metered-dose inhaler conversion projects consistent with the reality of the pace of

technological advances in the metered-dose inhaler sector;

3. To request the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the

Montreal Protocol to consider all possible options on how to address the potential non-compliance

difficulties of some Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 resulting from their high proportion

of chlorofluorocarbon consumption in the metered-dose inhaler sector;

4. To further request the Implementation Committee to give special consideration to the

situation of such Parties, particularly in the context of paragraph 4 of the non-compliance procedure of

the Protocol, in the light of information received from the Parties concerned and having due regard to

health considerations;

5. To consider again the matter referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 at the twentieth Meeting

of the Parties in 2008;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

45

6. To request the Executive Committee to consider including on the agenda of the

United Nations Environment Programme thematic regional workshops, information to clarify the steps

required to advance the transition from chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhalers;

7. To request each Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 receiving

essential-use exemptions for the production or import of chlorofluorocarbons to manufacture metereddose inhalers for export to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to submit to each importing

Party a detailed export manufacturing transition plan for each manufacturer where the exports of an

active ingredient to that Party exceed 10 metric tonnes, specifying the actions that each manufacturer is

taking and will take to transition its exports to chlorofluorocarbon-free metered-dose inhalers as

expeditiously as possible in a manner that does not put patients at risk;

8. That each manufacturer’s export manufacturing transition plans should include specific

details for each of the manufacturer’s export markets and for each metered-dose inhaler by active

ingredient concerning:

(a) Timing of submission to the health authority of marketing applications for

chlorofluorocarbon-free alternatives, expected approval and launch of such alternatives and withdrawal

of associated chlorofluorocarbon product or products;

(b) Indicative information on facilitative pricing, licensing and/or technology transfer

arrangements under consideration;

(c) Contribution to, and participation in, programmes for educating health care

professionals, government health authorities and patients about the transition to chlorofluorocarbon-free

treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;

9. Consistent with decision IV/25 and paragraph 4 of decision XII/2, to request each Party

referred to in paragraph 7 of the present decision, when deciding whether to nominate essential-use

volumes for and/or grant essential-use licenses to a manufacturer, to take into account the

manufacturer’s efforts to implement its export manufacturing transition plan and its contribution to

transition towards chlorofluorocarbon-free metered-dose inhalers;

10. To request each Party referred to in paragraph 7 to submit each year to the Technology

and Economic Assessment Panel, as part of the Party’s essential-use nomination, a report summarizing

the export manufacturing transition plans submitted, taking care to protect any confidential information;

11. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to consider such reports in

its assessment of each Party’s essential-use nominations;

12. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess and report on

progress at the twenty-seventh meeting Open-ended Working Group and to report to the Nineteenth

Meeting of the Parties on the need for, feasibility of, optimal timing of, and recommended quantities for

a limited campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons exclusively for metered-dose inhalers in both

Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of

Article 5.

Decision XVIII/17: Treatment of stockpiled ozone-depleting substances relative

to compliance

1. To note that the Secretariat has reported that Parties which had exceeded the allowed

level of production or consumption of a particular ozone-depleting substances in a given year have in

some cases explained that their excess production or consumption represented one of the four following

scenarios:

(a) Ozone-depleting substance production in that year which had been stockpiled for

domestic destruction or export for destruction in a future year;

(b) Ozone-depleting substance production in that year which had been stockpiled for

domestic feedstock use or export for that use in a future year;

(c) Ozone-depleting substance production in that year which had been stockpiled for export

to meet basic domestic needs of developing countries in a future year;

(d) Ozone-depleting substances imported in that year which had been stockpiled for

domestic feedstock use in a future year;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

46

2. To recall that the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of

the Montreal Protocol had concluded that scenario (d) was, in any event, in conformity with the

provisions of the Montreal Protocol and decisions of the Meetings of the Parties;

3. To request the Secretariat to maintain a consolidated record of the cases in which the

Parties have explained that their situations are the consequence of scenarios (a), (b) or (c), and

incorporate that record in the documentation of the Implementation Committee, for information

purposes only, as well as in the Secretariat’s report on data submitted by the Parties in accordance with

Article 7 of the Protocol;

4. To recognize that new scenarios not covered by paragraph 1 will be addressed by the

Implementation Committee in accordance with the non-compliance procedure of the Protocol and the

established practice thereunder;

5. To agree to revisit this issue at the Twenty-first Meeting of the Parties, in the light of the

information gathered in accordance with paragraph 3 of the present decision, with a view to considering

the need for further action.

Decision XVIII/18: Preventing illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances

through systems for monitoring their transboundary movement between Parties

Acknowledging the urgent need for action to prevent and minimize illegal trade in controlled

ozone-depleting substances so as not to undermine efforts to phase out ozone depleting substances, in

particular those of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol,

Mindful of decision XVII/16, in which the Parties requested the Ozone Secretariat to undertake

a feasibility study on developing a system for monitoring the transboundary movement of controlled

ozone-depleting substances between the Parties and to present the results of that study to the Eighteenth

Meeting of the Parties in 2006,

Noting with appreciation the work of the Ozone Secretariat and all organizations and individuals

that assisted in the preparation of the study,

Noting that the study contains recommendations on better implementation and enforcement of

existing mechanisms, notably licensing systems for the control of imports, exports and re-exports as

called for in Article 4B of the Protocol, which have a key role to play in monitoring transboundary

movements in controlled ozone-depleting substances,

Acknowledging also the need for Parties to make a detailed assessment of all the options put

forward in the study and, in particular, the medium-term and longer-term options,

1. To urge all Parties to implement fully Article 4B of the Protocol as well as to take into

account recommendations contained in existing decisions of the Parties, notably decisions IX/8, XIV/7,

XVII/12 and XVII/16;

2. To encourage all Parties to consider taking effective action to improve monitoring of

transboundary movement of controlled ozone-depleting substances including, as appropriate, a better

utilization of existing systems under other multilateral agreements for tracking trade in chemicals and to

exchange relevant information specifically in the context of trade in ozone-depleting substances

between Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and Parties not so operating;

3. To encourage all Parties which have experience in using the United Nations commodity

trade statistics database, commonly known as “UNComtrade”, and the publicly available software

Global Risk Identification and Detection, commonly known as “eGRID”, which are used to monitor

trade in ozone-depleting substances, to provide information on the suitability and costs of those tools to

the Ozone Secretariat, which will report such information at the twenty-seventh meeting of the

Open-ended Working Group and subsequently at the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007;

4. To encourage the United Nations Environment Programme’s Compliance Assistance

Programme to continue its efforts to train ozone officers and customs officers on best practices and to

raise awareness and to disseminate examples of best practices for national licensing systems and

regional cooperation to combat illegal trade;

5. To invite all Parties to submit written comments by 31 March 2007 to the Ozone

Secretariat on the report, focusing in particular on their priorities with respect to the medium- and

longer-term options listed in the study and/or all other possible options with a view to identifying those
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

47

cost-effective actions which could be given priority by the Parties both collectively through further

action to be considered under the Protocol and at the regional and national levels;

6. To request the Ozone Secretariat to provide a compilation of those comments for

consideration at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and subsequently at the

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007.

Decision XVIII/19: Guidelines for disclosure of interest for groups such as the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees

Recalling decision VIII/19,

Acknowledging the valuable contribution of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,

the technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies in their role of providing analysis and

presenting technical information to the Montreal Protocol,

Noting the code of conduct for the members of the Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel, technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies adopted in annex V to the report

of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties,

Recognizing the need to update paragraphs 5 and 6 of the code of conduct,

1. To replace paragraphs 5 and 6 of the code of conduct with the following paragraphs:

“5. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the technical options

committee and the temporary subsidiary body members shall disclose activities, including

business, government or financial interests in the production of ozone-depleting substances,

their alternatives, and products containing ozone depleting substances or their alternatives,

which might call into question their ability to discharge their duties and responsibilities

objectively. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, technical options committee and

temporary subsidiary body members must annually disclose such activities. They must also

disclose any financing from a company engaged in commercial activities for their participation

in the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the technical options committees or any

temporary subsidiary body. An illustrative list of interests is provided in the annex to the present

code of conduct.

A conflict of interest would only arise when an interest of a Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel, a technical options committee, or a temporary subsidiary body member, his

or her personal partner or dependant would influence the expert’s work as a member with

respect to the subject matter being considered.

Should there be a likelihood of a conflict of interest, a member shall take appropriate

action. Such action could include seeking the advice of the co-chair or not fully participating in

the determination of an issue or not participating at all in the determination of an issue.

The co–chair(s) shall seek to avoid conflicts of interest. This could include requesting a

member to take appropriate action, such as requesting a member to take no role or a restricted

role in the determination of an item. In the case of a serious conflict of interest, where a member

has been nominated by a Party, that Party shall be advised by the co-chair(s) of the conflict at

the earliest opportunity. Cases of conflicts or likely conflicts of interest relating to the co-chairs

should be raised with the President of the Meeting of the Parties.

6. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is responsible for the

interpretation of the code of conduct and the members of the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel, technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies for its

application. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel shall publish in annual reports

descriptions of the financial and other relevant interests. As well, such reports shall include a

brief description of conflicts or likely conflicts that arose in the year, the matter they were

related to, whether any Parties were involved and how they were resolved.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

48

Annex

The following is an illustrative list of the types of interests that should be disclosed:

(a) A current proprietary interest of a member or his/her personal partner or

dependant in a substance, technology or process (e.g., ownership of a patent) to be considered

by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel or any of its technical options committees

or temporary subsidiary bodies;

(b) A current financial interest of a member or his/her personal partner or

dependant, e.g., shares or bonds in an entity with an interest in the subject matter of the meeting

or work (but not shareholdings through general mutual funds or similar arrangements where the

expert has no control over the selection of shares);

(c) A current employment, consultancy, directorship, or other position held by a

member or his/her personal partner or dependant, whether or not paid, in any entity which has

an interest in the subject matter of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. This

element of disclosure also includes paid consultancy efforts performed on behalf of an

implementing agency to assist developing countries to adopt alternatives;

(d) The provision of advice on significant issues to a government with respect to its

implementation of the Montreal Protocol or engaging in the development of significant policy

positions of a government for a Montreal Protocol meeting;

(e) Performance of any paid research activities or receipt of any fellowships or

grants for work related to a proposed use of an ozone-depleting substance or an alternative to a

proposed use of an ozone-depleting substance.”

Decision XVIII/20: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia

1. To note that Armenia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 1 October 1999 and the London

and Copenhagen Amendments to the Protocol on 26 November 2003 and is classified as a Party

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;

2. To note also that the Council of the Global Environment Facility has approved

$2,090,000 to enable Armenia’s compliance with the Protocol;

3. To note further that Armenia has reported annual consumption for the Annex E

controlled substance (methyl bromide) for 2004 of 1.020 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s

maximum allowable consumption level of zero ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year,

and that Armenia is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for methyl bromide under

the Protocol;

4. To note with appreciation Armenia’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt

return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures and to note that, under the

plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Armenia

specifically commits itself:

(a) To maintain methyl bromide consumption at no more than zero ODP-tonnes from 2007,

save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2015;

(b) To introduce by 1 July 2007 a system for licensing the import and export of

ozone-depleting substances that includes import quotas;

5. To note that Armenia has reported methyl bromide consumption for 2005 that

demonstrates its return to compliance in that year and to congratulate the Party on that achievement, but

also to note the Party’s concern that, until the measures contained in subparagraph 4 (b) of the present

decision come into force, the Party cannot be confident of its ability to sustain its return to compliance,

and therefore to urge Armenia to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the

remainder of the plan of action to sustain its phase-out of consumption of methyl bromide;

6. To monitor closely the progress of Armenia with regard to the implementation of its

plan of action and the phase-out of methyl bromide. 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
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

49

Party in good standing. In that regard, Armenia should continue to receive international assistance to

enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that

may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision,

however, the Parties caution Armenia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that

in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item

C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available

under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide that is the subject of

non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of

non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/21: Non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the

Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in

Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) and Annex B, group III, (methyl

chloroform) by the Democratic Republic of the Congo

1. To note that the Democratic Republic of the Congo ratified the Montreal Protocol and

the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 30 November 1994 and the Montreal and Beijing

Amendments on 23 March 2005, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the

Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund

for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in March 1999. The Executive Committee has

approved $2,974,819.30 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with

Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. To note also that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has reported annual

consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of

16.500 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of

2.288 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that the Party is therefore in

non-compliance with the carbon tetrachloride control measures under the Protocol;

3. To note further that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has reported annual

consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III, (methyl chloroform) for 2005 of 4.000

ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 3.330 ODP-tonnes

for that controlled substance for that year, and that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is therefore in

non-compliance with the methyl chloroform control measures under the Protocol;

4. To note with appreciation the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s submission of a plan

of action to ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride and methyl

chloroform control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the

financial mechanism of the Protocol, the Party specifically commits itself:

(a) To maintain carbon tetrachloride consumption in 2006 at no more than

16.500 ODP-tonnes and then to reduce it as follows:

(i) To 2.2 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(ii) To zero in 2008;

(b) To maintain methyl chloroform consumption in 2006 at no more than 4.000 ODP-tonnes

and then to reduce it as follows:

(i) To 3.3 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(ii) To zero in 2008;

(c) To monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances,

which includes import quotas;

5. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 4 above should enable the Democratic

Republic of the Congo to return to compliance with the Protocol in 2007 and to urge the Party to work

with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of

carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform;

6. To monitor closely the progress of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with regard to

the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. 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. In that regard, the Party should continue to receive international
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

50

assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of

measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the

present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 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. Those measures may include the possibility of actions

available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of carbon tetrachloride and methyl

chloroform that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not

contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/22: Non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the

Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substancesin

Annex A, group I, (CFCs) by Dominica

1. To note that Dominica ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on

31 March 1993 and the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 7 March 2006, is classified

as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme

approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal

Protocol in November 1998. The Executive Committee has approved $232,320 from the Multilateral

Fund to enable Dominica’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. To note further that Dominica has reported annual consumption for the Annex A, group

I, controlled substances (CFCs) for 2005 of 1.388 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum

allowable consumption level of 0.740 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that

Dominica is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for CFCs under the Protocol;

3. To note with appreciation Dominica’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt

return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC control measures and to note that, under the plan, without

prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Dominica specifically commits

itself:

(a) To reduce CFC consumption from 1.388 ODP-tonnes in 2005 as follows:

(i) To 0.45 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(ii) To zero ODP-tonnes from 2007, save for essential uses that may be authorized

by the Parties after 1 January 2010;

(b) To introduce by 31 December 2006 a system for licensing the import and export of

ozone-depleting substances that includes import quotas for all ozone-depleting substances listed under

the Protocol. With regard to CFCs, Dominica would set annual quotas consistent with the levels stated

in paragraph 3 (a) of the present decision, except to meet the needs of any national disasters and

resulting emergencies, in which case Dominica will ensure that the annual quotas do not exceed its

maximum allowable levels of consumption as prescribed by Article 2A of the Protocol or such levels as

may be otherwise authorized by the Parties;

(c) To monitor its ban on the import of equipment requiring the supply of ozone-depleting

substances, noting that the ban excludes equipment for medical purposes;

4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Dominica to return

to compliance in 2006 and to urge Dominica to work with the relevant implementing agencies to

implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of CFCs;

5. To monitor closely the progress of Dominica with regard to the implementation of its

plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. 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. In that regard, Dominica should continue to receive international assistance to enable it

to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be

taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however,

the Parties caution Dominica, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the

event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of

the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under

Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so

that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

51

Decision XVIII/23: Non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the

Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E

(methyl bromide) by Ecuador and request for a plan of action

1. To note that Ecuador ratified the Montreal Protocol on 10 April 1990, the London

Amendment on 30 April 1990 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 24 November 1993, is classified as

a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme

approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal

Protocol in February 1992. The Executive Committee has approved $5,737,500 from the Multilateral

Fund to enable Ecuador’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. To note further that Ecuador has reported annual consumption of the controlled

substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) for 2005 of 153.000 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s

maximum allowable consumption level of 52.892 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that

year, and that Ecuador is therefore in non-compliance with the methyl bromide control measures under

the Protocol;

3. To request Ecuador, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2007, to submit

to the Secretariat, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance

Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks

to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Ecuador may wish to consider including in its plan of action

the establishment of policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phaseout;

4. To monitor closely the progress of Ecuador with regard to the phase-out of methyl

bromide. 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. In that regard,

Ecuador should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in

accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties

in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties

cautions Ecuador, 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. Those measures may include the possibility of

actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide that is the subject

of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of

non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/24: Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures

of the Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in

Annex A, group I, (CFCs) by Eritrea and request for a plan of action

1. To note that Eritrea ratified the Montreal Protocol on 10 March 2005 and the London,

Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 5 July 2005 and is classified as a Party operating

under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol. The Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for

the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol has approved $106,700 from the Multilateral Fund to

enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. To note that Eritrea has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in

Annex A, group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 30.220 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum

allowable consumption level of 20.574 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and

that in the absence of further clarification Eritrea is therefore presumed to be in non-compliance with

the control measures under the Protocol;

3. To request Eritrea to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than

31 March 2007, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance

Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, an explanation for its excess consumption,

together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance.

Eritrea may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to

support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ozone-depleting-substance-using equipment and

policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

52

4. To monitor closely the progress of Eritrea with regard to the phase-out of CFCs. 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. In that regard, Eritrea should

continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance with item

A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of

non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions Eritrea, 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. Those measures may include the possibility of actions

available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs that are the subject of

non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of

non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/25: Non-compliance with regard to the transfer of CFC

production rights by Greece

1. To note that Greece ratified the Montreal Protocol on 29 December 1988, the London

Amendment on 11 May 1993, the Copenhagen Amendment on 30 January 1995, the Montreal

Amendment on 27 January 2006 and the Beijing Amendment on 27 January 2006 and is classified as a

Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;

2. To note further that Greece has reported annual production for the Annex A, group I,

controlled substances (CFCs) of 2,793.000 ODP-tonnes to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties

operating under Article 5 of the Protocol, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable production

level for those controlled substances of 1,168 ODP-tonnes;

3. To note with appreciation the explanation submitted by the Party that it received a

transfer of CFC production rights from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of

1,786 ODP-tonnes in 2004 such that its maximum allowable level of CFC production in that year

increased to 2,954 ODP-tonnes, an amount greater than the total CFC production reported by Greece for

2004;

4. To note with concern, however, that Greece did not notify the Secretariat prior to the

date of the transfer and that it is therefore in non-compliance with the provisions of Article 2 of the

Protocol that prescribe the procedure for the transfer of production rights, while acknowledging the

Party’s regret at its failure to comply with the notification requirement of Article 2 and its undertaking

to ensure that any future transfers are conducted in accordance with that Article;

Decision XVIII/26: Revised plan of action to return Guatemala to compliance

with the control measures in Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol

1. To note that Guatemala ratified the Montreal Protocol on 7 November 1989 and the

London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 21 January 2002. Guatemala is classified

as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme

approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal

Protocol in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved

$6,366,065 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the

Protocol;

2. To recall decision XV/34, which noted that Guatemala was in non-compliance in 2002

with its obligations under Article 2H of the Protocol to freeze its consumption of the controlled

substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) at its baseline level of 400.7 ODP-tonnes but also noted with

appreciation the plan of action submitted by Guatemala to ensure its prompt return to compliance in

2007 with the Protocol’s methyl bromide consumption control measures;

3. To note with concern, however, that Guatemala has reported consumption of methyl

bromide for 2005 of 522.792 ODP-tonnes, which is inconsistent with the Party’s commitment contained

in decision XV/34 to reduce its methyl bromide consumption to 360 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

4. To note further the advice of Guatemala that all relevant stakeholders have committed to

phase out methyl bromide in accordance with the revised time-specific consumption reduction

benchmarks contained in paragraph 5 of the present decision, which provide the Party with one
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

53

additional year to overcome the technical, economic and political challenges that were the cause of the

Party’s deviation from its commitments contained in decision XV/34;

5. To note also with appreciation that Guatemala has submitted a revised plan of action for

methyl bromide phase-out in controlled uses and to note, without prejudice to the operation of the

financial mechanism of the Protocol, that under the revised plan Guatemala specifically commits itself:

(a) To reduce methyl bromide consumption from 709.4 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) To 400.70 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(ii) To 361 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(iii) To 320.56 ODP-tonnes in 2008;

(iv) To phase out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2015, as required under

the Protocol, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) To monitor its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances,

including quotas;

6. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Guatemala to return

to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures in 2008 and to urge Guatemala to

work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out

consumption of methyl bromide;

7. To monitor closely the progress of Guatemala with regard to the implementation of its

plan of action and the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that Guatemala 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. In that regard, Guatemala should continue to receive international

assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of

measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the

present decision, however, the Parties caution Guatemala, 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 Parties will

consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may

include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl

bromide that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to

a continuing situation of non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/27: Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures

of the Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substance in

Annex B group II, (carbon tetrachloride) by the Islamic Republic of Iran and

request for a plan of action

1. To note that the Islamic Republic of Iran ratified the Montreal Protocol on 3 October

1990, the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 4 August 1997 and the Montreal Amendment on

17 October 2001, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and

had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in June 1993. The Executive Committee has approved

$59,507,714 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10

of the Protocol;

2. To note that the Islamic Republic of Iran has reported annual consumption for the

controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 13.640 ODP-tonnes,

which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 11.550 ODP-tonnes for that

controlled substance for that year, and that in the absence of further clarification the Islamic Republic of

Iran is therefore presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

3. To request the Islamic Republic of Iran to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of

urgency and no later than 31 March 2007, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the

Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, an explanation for its excess

consumption, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to

compliance. The Islamic Republic of Iran may wish to consider including in its plan of action the

establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

54

ozone-depleting-substance-using equipment and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure

progress in achieving the phase-out;

4. To monitor closely the progress of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the

phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. 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. In that regard, the Islamic Republic of Iran should continue to receive international

assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of

measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the

present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties cautions the Islamic Republic of Iran, 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. Those measures may include the possibility of actions

available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of

non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of

non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/28: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kenya

1. To note that Kenya ratified the Montreal Protocol on 9 November 1988, the London and

Copenhagen Amendments on 27 September 1994 and the Montreal Amendment on 12 July 2000, is

classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country

programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of

the Montreal Protocol in July 1994. The Executive Committee has approved $4,579,057 from the

Multilateral Fund to enable Kenya’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. To note also that Kenya has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances

in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 162.210 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum

allowable consumption level of 119.728 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and

that Kenya is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for CFCs under the Protocol;

3. To note with appreciation Kenya’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt

return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC control measures and to note that, under the plan, without

prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Kenya specifically commits itself:

(a) To reduce CFC consumption from 162.210 ODP-tonnes in 2005 to 60.00 ODP-tonnes in

2006;

(b) To further reduce CFC consumption from 60.00 ODP-tonnes in 2006 to 30.00

ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(c) To further reduce CFC consumption from 30.00 ODP-tonnes in 2007 to 10.00

ODP-tonnes in 2008;

(d) To further reduce CFC consumption from 10.00 ODP-tonnes in 2008 to zero (0.00)

ODP-tonnes in 2009, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2010;

(e) To monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances,

which includes import quotas;

4. To urge Kenya to gazette the ozone-depleting substances regulations required to

establish and implement its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances,

which includes import quotas, as soon as possible and preferably no later than 31 December 2006;

5. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Kenya to return to

compliance with the Protocol in 2006 and to urge Kenya to work with the relevant implementing

agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of CFCs;

6. To monitor closely the progress of Kenya with regard to the implementation of its plan

of action and the phase-out of CFCs. 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. In that regard, Kenya should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to

meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken

by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the

Parties caution Kenya, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event

that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

55

indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under

Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so

that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/29: Request for change in baseline data by Mexico

1. To note that the Mexico has presented sufficient information, in accordance with

decision XV/19 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties, to justify its request to change its baseline data

for the year 1998 for the consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon

tetrachloride) from zero ODP-tonnes to 187.517 ODP-tonnes;

2. To therefore accept the Party’s request to change its baseline data;

3. To note that the revised baseline data will be used to calculate the Party’s consumption

baseline for carbon tetrachloride for the year 2005 and beyond.

Decision XVIII/30: Non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the

Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substance in

Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) by Mexico

1. To note that Mexico ratified the Montreal Protocol on 31 March 1988, the London

Amendment on 11 October 1991 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 16 September 1994, is classified

as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme

approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal

Protocol in February 1992. The Executive Committee has approved $83,209,107 from the Multilateral

Fund to enable Mexico’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. To note further that Mexico has reported annual consumption for the Annex B, group II,

controlled substance (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 89.540 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s

maximum allowable consumption level of 9.376 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year,

and that Mexico is therefore in non-compliance with the carbon tetrachloride control measures under the

Protocol;

3. To note with appreciation Mexico’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt

return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures and to note that, under

the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Mexico

specifically commits itself:

(a) To reduce carbon tetrachloride consumption from 89.540 ODP-tonnes in 2005 as

follows:

(i) To 9.376 ODP-tonnes in 2008;

(ii) To zero ODP-tonnes in 2009;

(b) To monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances,

which includes import quotas;

4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Mexico to return to

compliance with the Protocol in 2008 and to urge Mexico to work with the relevant implementing

agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;

5. To monitor closely the progress of Mexico with regard to the phase-out of carbon

tetrachloride. 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. In that regard,

Mexico should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in

accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties

in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Meeting of the Parties

cautions Mexico, 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. Those measures may include the possibility of

actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of carbon tetrachloride that is the

subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing

situation of non-compliance;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

56

Decision XVIII/31: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Pakistan

1. To note that Pakistan ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on

18 December 1992, the Copenhagen Amendment on 17 February 1995 and the Montreal and Beijing

Amendments on 2 September 2005, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of

the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral

Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1996. The Executive Committee has approved

$20,827,626 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Pakistan’s compliance in accordance with Article 10

of the Protocol;

2. To note further that Pakistan has reported annual consumption for the Annex B,

group II, controlled substance (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 148.500 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds

the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 61.930 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance

for that year, and that Pakistan is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures for carbon

tetrachloride under the Protocol;

3. To note with appreciation Pakistan’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt

return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures and to note that, under

the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Pakistan

specifically commits itself:

(a) To reduce carbon tetrachloride consumption from 148.500 ODP-tonnes in 2005 to

41.800 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(b) To monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone-depleting substances,

which includes import quotas;

4. To note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Pakistan to return to

compliance with the Protocol in 2006 and to urge Pakistan to work with the relevant implementing

agencies to implement its plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;

5. To monitor closely the progress of Pakistan with regard to the implementation of its plan

of action and the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. To the degree that the Party is working towards and

meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a

Party in good standing. In that regard, Pakistan should continue to receive international assistance to

enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that

may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision,

however, the Parties caution Pakistan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that,

in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item

C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available

under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of

non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of

non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/32: Non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures of the

Montreal Protocol governing consumption of the controlled substances in

Annex A, group I, (CFCs) and Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) by

Paraguay and request for a plan of action

1. To note that Paraguay ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London Amendment on 3

December 1992, the Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments on 27 April 2001 and the Beijing

Amendment on 18 July 2006, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the

Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund

for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in February 1997. The Executive Committee has

approved $1,768,840 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Paraguay’s compliance in accordance with

Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. To note further that Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled

substance in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 250.748 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s

maximum allowable consumption level of 105.280 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that

year, and that Paraguay is therefore in non-compliance with the CFC control measures under the

Protocol;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

57

3. To note also that Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance

in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 6.842 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s

maximum allowable consumption level of 0.090 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year,

and that Paraguay is therefore in non-compliance with the carbon tetrachloride control measures under

the Protocol;

4. To request Paraguay to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than

31 March 2007, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance

Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks

to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Paraguay may wish to consider including in its plan of action

the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule included in its plan of action and

policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving phase-out;

5. To monitor closely the progress of Paraguay with regard to the phase-out of carbon

tetrachloride and CFCs. 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. In that regard, Paraguay should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet

its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a

Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the

Meeting of the Parties cautions Paraguay, 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. Those measures may

include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of carbon

tetrachloride and CFCs that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not

contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance;

Decision XVIII/33: Non-compliance with data-reporting requirements for the

purpose of establishing baselines under paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d) of Article 5 by

Serbia

1. To note that Serbia has not reported the data required for the establishment of baselines

for the controlled substances in Annex B (other CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform) for

the years 1998 and 1999, as provided for by paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d) of Article 5 of the Montreal

Protocol;

2. To note that the failure to report such data places Serbia in non-compliance with its

data-reporting obligations under the Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives the outstanding

data;

3. To stress that compliance by Serbia with the Protocol cannot be evaluated without the

outstanding data;

4. To acknowledge that Serbia has only recently ratified the amendments to the Protocol

that require it to report data on the controlled substances indicated in paragraph 1 of the present decision

and also that Serbia has recently experienced a considerable change in its national circumstances in

connection with which it has undertaken to continue the legal personality of the former Serbia and

Montenegro in respect of the Protocol for the territory under its control effective 3 June 2006, but also

to note that the Party has received assistance with data collection from the Multilateral Fund for the

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol through the Fund's implementing agencies;

5. To urge Serbia to work together with the United Nations Environment Programme under

that agency’s Compliance Assistance Programme and with other implementing agencies of the

Multilateral Fund to report the data, as a matter of urgency, to the Secretariat;

6. To request the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the

Montreal Protocol to review the situation of Serbia with respect to data reporting at its next meeting;
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

58

Decision XVIII/34: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance

with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol

1. To note with appreciation that 181 Parties out of the 189 that should have reported data

for 2005 in accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol have done so and that 104 of those

Parties reported their data by 30 June 2006 in accordance with decision XV/15;

2. To note, however, that the following Parties have still not reported their 2005 data: Cote

d’Ivoire, Malta, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic

of);

3. To note that their failure to report their 2005 data in accordance with Article 7 places the

Parties listed in paragraph 2 in non-compliance with their data-reporting obligations under the Protocol

until such time as the Secretariat receives their outstanding data;

4. To note also that lack of timely data reporting by Parties impedes effective monitoring

and assessment of Parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Protocol;

5. To note 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;

6. To urge the Parties listed in the present decision, as appropriate, to work closely with the

implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund to report the required data to the Secretariat as a matter

of urgency;

7. To request the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the

Montreal Protocol to review the situation of the Parties listed in paragraph 2 at its next meeting;

8. To encourage Parties to continue to report consumption and production data as soon as

figures are available, and preferably by 30 June each year, as agreed in decision XV/15;

Decision XVIII/35: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under

Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol

1. To note that paragraph 3 of Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol requires each Party,

within three months of the date of introducing its system for licensing the import and export of new,

used, recycled and reclaimed substances in Annexes A, B, C and E of the Protocol, to report to the

Secretariat on the establishment and operation of that system;

2. To note with appreciation that 124 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol

have established import and export licensing systems as required under the terms of the Amendment;

3. To note also with appreciation that 30 Parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified

the Montreal Amendment have also established import and export licensing systems;

4. To recognize that licensing systems bring the following benefits: monitoring of imports

and exports of ozone-depleting substances; prevention of illegal trade; and enabling of data collection;

5. To note that Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol that have not yet

established licensing systems are in non-compliance with Article 4B of the Protocol and can be subject

to the non-compliance procedure under the Protocol;

6. To urge all remaining 23 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to provide information to

the Secretariat on the establishment of import and export licensing systems and to urge those that have

not yet established such systems to do so as a matter of urgency;

7. To encourage all remaining Parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal

Amendment to ratify it and to establish import and export licensing systems if they have not yet done

so;

8. To urge all Parties that already operate licensing systems to ensure that they are

implemented and enforced effectively;

9. To review periodically the status of the establishment of licensing systems by all Parties

to the Protocol, as called for in Article 4B of the Protocol.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

59

Decision XVIII/36: Dialogue on key future challenges to be faced by the Montreal

Protocol

1. To convene a two-day open-ended dialogue, including participation by the Assessment

Panels, the Ozone Secretariat, the Multilateral Fund secretariat and the implementing agencies, and

inviting other relevant multilateral environmental agreement secretariats and non-governmental

organizations as observers, to discuss issues related to the future key challenges of the Montreal

Protocol, in accordance with the agenda contained in the annex to the present decision;

2. That the above-mentioned dialogue will be held during the two days immediately

preceding the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and that interpretation in the

six United Nations languages will be provided;

3. To request the Secretariat, liaising with the appropriate Montreal Protocol bodies, to

prepare and to post on its website by 30 April 2007 a background document to serve as context for the

above-mentioned dialogue, containing:

(a) A summary of the key achievements of the Montreal Protocol, lessons learned and its

present status;

(b) Volumes of ozone-depleting substances phased out and phased in by substance and by

category of Parties (i.e., Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and Parties not so operating),

forecasts of future trends in production and consumption and emissions from ozone-depleting substance

banks;

(c) A compilation of submissions by Parties received in accordance with paragraph 4 of the

present decision;

(d) Concise factual information on the topics contained in the agenda of the dialogue;

(e) Data on the ozone-depleting substances phased out and phased in under projects

approved and implemented under the Multilateral Fund;

(f) An overview of the current and predicted future state of the ozone layer;

4. To invite Parties to submit to the Secretariat by 16 April 2007 any suggestions they may

have on the topics to be discussed under the agenda contained in the annex;

5. To further request the Secretariat to prepare, in cooperation with the co-chairs of the

dialogue, a summary report of the discussions that take place during the dialogue;

6. That a summary of key issues arising from the dialogue will be prepared by the

co-chairs of the dialogue and presented at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working

Group;

7. To select Mr. Khaled Klaly (Syrian Arab Republic) and Mr. Tom Land (United States of

America) as co-chairs of the dialogue.

Annex to decision XVIII/36

Agenda for a dialogue on key future challenges faced by the Montreal Protocol

Nairobi, Kenya, .

Day 1

Welcome / Introduction

Speech by an eminent person

Summary of key achievements of the Montreal Protocol (Ozone Secretariat)

Questions / Discussion of summary presented by the Ozone Secretariat

Lunch

Future challenges related to scientific assessment, analysis and monitoring of the state of the ozone

layer
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

60

Challenges in phasing-out HCFCs. Open discussion.

Key future policy challenges related to the further management, control and/or phase-out of

ozone-depleting substances other than HCFCs

Day 2

Issues related to sustaining compliance, maintaining enforcement and combating illegal trade beyond

2010

Lunch

Improving cooperation and coordination of the Montreal Protocol with other multilateral environmental

agreements and processes

The future of the Multilateral Fund beyond 2010

Administration and institutional issues related to the Montreal Protocol including issues related to the

Meeting of the Parties, the assessment panels, the Implementation Committee and the Ozone Secretariat

Summary and conclusions

Decision XVIII/37: Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

To convene the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Montreal, Canada,

from 17 to 21 September 2007.

Comments made at the time of adoption of decisions

222. A representative of the Russian Federation, speaking on the decisions on essential use

exemptions, expressed concern that the adoption of the decision on metered-dose inhalers would

invalidate the essential use authorization granted to the Russian Federation for 2007 under

decision XVII/5. The Executive Secretary clarified that decision XVII/5 was still valid and that the

decision on metered-dose inhalers adopted at the current meeting would not operate retrospectively to

affect decision XVII/5.

223. The representative of the European Community, speaking on behalf of the Community and its

member states, made a statement on the decision on critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide. She

thanked the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee for its valuable work and expressed the

belief that its recommendations provided a sound basis for critical-use exemptions for 2007 and 2008.

The Committee’s recommendations were agreeable to the Community and its member States, some of

which had already accepted final amounts well below the Committee’s recommendations. She had

hoped that they would also have proved acceptable to other nominating Parties, but the Community was

prepared to compromise with the aim of bringing the meeting to a successful conclusion. She sincerely

hoped that the decision would assist in all Parties’ endeavours to phase out critical uses of methyl

bromide in the near future and that it would also help to reduce the amounts of methyl bromide licensed

for domestic use.

224. The representative of the United States of America stated that his delegation acknowledged

that it was indeed the purpose of the Montreal Protocol to reduce and eliminate all non-critical and

non-essential uses of ozone-depleting substances. He also noted, however, that it was not the intention

of the Protocol, and thus could not be the intention of the Parties, to eliminate all uses of a substance for

which no alternatives that were technically and economically feasible were yet available. In the context

of decision IX/6, the United States had been seeking to reduce and eliminate stocks of methyl bromide

produced before the 2005 phase-out. To the extent consistent with national and international law, his

Government intended to increase its efforts to accelerate the phase-out of those pre-existing stocks.

225. The representative of Switzerland reiterated his confidence in the work of the Methyl Bromide

Technical Options Committee and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. He stated his

belief in the need for further improvements in the data and information provided by Parties putting

forward critical-use nominations, which would further assist that work. He believed that the Panel’s
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

61

recommendations were to a certain extent disappointing to everyone: those Parties that had already

eliminated the use of methyl bromide felt that they were not ambitious enough, while those which had

put forward critical-use nominations felt that they were not generous enough. That suggested that the

Panel’s recommendations had achieved an appropriate level of neutrality.

X. Adoption of the report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol

226. The present report was adopted on Friday, 3 November 2006, on the basis of the draft reports

submitted to the Meeting.

XI. Closure of the meeting

227. The Parties expressed their sincere appreciation to the Government and people of India for

their excellent assistance and hospitality during the meeting.

228. Following the customary exchange of courtesies, the President declared the meeting closed at

10.15 p.m. on Friday, 3 November 2006.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

62

Annex I

Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer

Approved 2006, 2007 and 2008 budgets

w/m 2006 (US$) w/m 2007 (US$) w/m 2008 (US$)

10 PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT

1100 Project personnel

1101 Executive Secretary (D-2) (shared

with the Vienna Convention, VC) 6 117,500 6 120,500 6 122,308

1102 Deputy Executive Secretary (D-1) 12 215,000 12 220,000 12 223,300

1103 Senior Legal Officer (P-5) 12 155,000 12 160,000 12 162,400

1104 Senior Scientific Affairs Officer

(P-5) (shared with VC) 6 85,000 6 87,500 6 88,813

1105 Administrative Officer (P-4) (paid

by UNEP) 0 0 0

1106 Database Manager (Information

System & Technology - P3) 12 120,000 12 125,000 12 126,875

1107

Programme Officer

(Communication & Information -

P3) (paid from VC)

12 0 12 0 12 0

1108 Programme Officer (Monitoring

and Compliance) - P3 12 120,000 12 125,000 12 126,875

1199 Sub-total 812,500 838,000 850,570

1200 Consultants

1201 Assistance in data-reporting,

analysis and promotion of the

implementation of the Protocol

50,000 30,000 40,000

1299 Sub-total 50,000 30,000 40,000

1300 Administrative support

1301 Administrative Assistant (G-7)

(shared with VC) 6 13,800 6 14,750 6 15,488

1302 Personal Assistant (G-6) 12 25,250 12 25,500 12 26,775
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

63

w/m 2006 (US$) w/m 2007 (US$) w/m 2008 (US$)

1303 Programme Assistant (G-6) (paid

by VC) 12 0 12 0 12 0

1304 Information Assistant (G-6)

(shared with VC) 6 11,500 6 11,500 6 12,075

1305 Programme Assistant (G-6)

(shared with VC) 6 10,500 6 11,000 6 11,550

1306 Documents Clerk (G-4) 12 17,000 12 17,500 12 18,375

1307 Data Assistant (G-6) 12 24,960 12 26,000 12 27,300

1308 Programme Assistant - Fund (G-6)

(paid by UNEP) 12 0 12 0 12 0

1309 Logistics Assistant (G-3) (paid by

UNEP) 12 0 12 0 12 0

1310 Bilingual Senior Secretary (G-6)

(to be paid from VC) 12 0 12 0 12 0

1320 Temporary assistance 12 17,500 18,000 18,900

1321 Open-ended Working Group

meetings 450,000 556,432 490,000

1322 Preparatory and Parties meetings

(shared with VC every three years,

applies to the Twentieth Meeting

of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol and eighth meetng of the

Conference of the Parties to the

Vienna Convention

500,000 500,000 350,000

1323 Assessment panel meetings* 134,150 100,000 100,000

1324 Bureau meetings 20,000 20,000 20,000

1325 Implementation Committee

meetings 84,000 90,000 90,000

1326 MP informal consultation

meetings 5,000 5,000 5,000

1399 Sub-total 1,313,660 1,395,682 1,185,463

1600 Travel on official business

1601 Staff travel on official business 210,000 210,000 210,000

1602 Conference Services staff travel

on official business 15,000 15,000 15,000

1699 Sub-total 225,000 225,000 225,000

1999 COMPONENT TOTAL 2,401,160 2,488,682 2,301,033
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

64

w/m 2006 (US$) w/m 2007 (US$) w/m 2008 (US$)

30 MEETING/PARTICIPATION COMPONENT

3300 Support for participation

3301 Assessment panel meetings* 550,000 500,000 500,000

3302 Preparatory and Parties meetings 350,000 350,000 400,000

3303 Open-ended Working Group

meetings** 300,000 344,000 300,000

3304 Bureau meetings 20,000 20,000 20,000

3305 Implementation Committee

meetings 125,000 125,000 125,000

3306 Consultations in an informal

meeting 10,000 20,000 10,000

3399 Sub-total 1,355,000 1,359,000 1,355,000

3999 COMPONENT TOTAL 1,355,000 1,359,000 1,355,000

40 EQUIPMENT AND PREMISES COMPONENT

4100 Expendable equipment (items under $1,500)

4101 Miscellaneous expendables

(shared with VC) 17,000 17,000 17,000

4199 Sub-total 17,000 17,000 17,000

4200 Non-expendable equipment

4201 Personal computers and

accessories 2,000 5,000 5,000

4202 Portable computers 4,000 2,273 0

4203 Other office equipment (server,

fax, scanner, furniture etc.) 5,000 8,000 5,000

4204 Photocopiers 6,000 10,000 10,000

4299 Sub-total 17,000 25,273 20,000

4300 Premises

4301 Rental of office premises (shared

with VC) 27,500 28,000 28,000

4399 Sub-total 27,500 28,000 28,000

4999 COMPONENT TOTAL 61,500 70,273 65,000
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

65

w/m 2006 (US$) w/m 2007 (US$) w/m 2008 (US$)

50 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT

5100 Operation and maintenance of equipment

5101 Maintenance of equipment and

others (shared with VC) 19,500 20,000 20,000

5199 Sub-total 19,500 20,000 20,000

5200 Reporting costs***

5201 Reporting 50,000 50,000 50,000

5202 Reporting (assessment panels) 60,000 15,000 15,000

5203 Reporting (Protocol awareness) 5,000 5,000 5,000

5299 Sub-total 115,000 70,000 70,000

5300 Sundry

5301 Communications 35,000 35,000 35,000

5302 Freight charges (documents) 70,000 60,000 60,000

5303 Training 6,500 6,500 6,500

5304

Others (International Ozone Day

& twentieth anniversary of

Montreal Protocol)***

10,000 10,000 0

5399 Sub-total 121,500 111,500 101,500

5400 Hospitality

5401 Hospitality*** 15,000 15,000 15,000

5499 Sub-total 15,000 15,000 15,000

5999 COMPONENT TOTAL 271,000 216,500 206,500

99 TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COST 4,088,660 4,134,455 3,927,533

Programme support costs (13%) 531,525 537,478 510,578

GRAND TOTAL (inclusive of programme support costs) 4,620,185 4,671,933 4,438,111

Operating cash reserve exclusive of PSC**** 58,347 0 104,452

TOTAL BUDGET 4,678,532 4,671,933 4,542,563

Draw down from the Trust Fund balance 266,720 0 0

Draw down from Secretariat's unspent 2001 balance 33,630 0 0

Draw down from the Trust Fund's interest income 166,650 0 0

Additional draw down from the Trust Fund's balance and interest income 1

119,668 0 0

Sub-total of draw down1 586,668 395,000 0

Contribution from the Parties 4,091,864 4,276,933 4,542,563
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

66

* Financial assistance was provided by the Parties for 2006, on an exceptional basis, to cover the costs of expert assistance to

MBTOC for the maximum sum of $34,150. There is no supplemental funding proposed for 2007 and 2008.

** The cost of the 2-day workshop on future challenges of the Montreal Protocol to be held back to back with

the twenty-seventh Open-ended Working Group meeting has been added to this line.

*** It is understood that in order to facilitate the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol for 2007 only, lines 5200, 5304, 5401

and 3300 can be augmented with any unspent funds from any other budget line and can also be augmented with participation funds that have accrued

or may accrue due to travel cancellations by participants.

****The Parties agreed that the operating cash reserve for 2005 would be 7.5% of the approved budget (decision XVI/44, par. 6).

In 2006, the operating cash reserve increased to 8.3 per cent in accordance with decision XVII/42 on financial matters and is

being maintained at this level in 2007 (decision XVIII/4). In 2008, the Parties agree to contribute 3 per cent of the budget for the operating cash reserve,

after which time the Parties will strive to achieve and maintain an operating cash reserve of 15 per cent.

1 The draw-down in 2006 is in accordance with paragraph 2 of decision XVII/42 and the draw down in 2007 is in accordance with decision XVIII/5.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

67

Annex II

Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on the Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Scale of contributions by the Parties for the years 2007 and 2008 based on the United Nations scale of assessments

(General Assembly Resolution A/RES/58/1 B of 3 March 2004 with no Party paying more than 22 per cent)

(in United States dollars)

Name of Party

UN scale of

assessment for

year 2004-2006

Adjusted UN scale to

exclude

non-contributors

Adjusted UN scale with

22% maximum

assessment rate

considered

Year 2006

contributions by

Parties

Year 2007

contributions by

Parties

Year 2008

contributions by

Parties

Afghanistan 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Albania 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Algeria 0.076 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Angola 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Antigua and Barbuda 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Argentina 0.956 0.956 0.951 38,903 40,662 43,188

Armenia 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Australia 1.592 1.592 1.583 64,784 67,714 71,919

Austria 0.859 0.859 0.854 34,955 36,536 38,806

Azerbaijan 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Bahamas 0.013 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Bahrain 0.030 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Bangladesh 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Barbados 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Belarus 0.018 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Belgium 1.069 1.069 1.063 43,501 45,469 48,292

Belize 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Benin 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

68

Name of Party

UN scale of

assessment for

year 2004-2006

Adjusted UN scale to

exclude

non-contributors

Adjusted UN scale with

22% maximum

assessment rate

considered

Year 2006

contributions by

Parties

Year 2007

contributions by

Parties

Year 2008

contributions by

Parties

Bhutan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Bolivia 0.009 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Botswana 0.012 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Brazil 1.523 1.523 1.515 61,976 64,779 68,802

Brunei Darussalam 0.034 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Bulgaria 0.017 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Burkina Faso 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Burundi 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Cambodia 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Cameroon 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Canada 2.813 2.813 2.798 114,470 119,647 127,078

Cape Verde 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Central African Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Chad 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Chile 0.223 0.223 0.222 9,075 9,485 10,074

China 2.053 2.053 2.042 83,543 87,322 92,745

Colombia 0.155 0.155 0.154 6,307 6,593 7,002

Comoros 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Congo 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Cook Islands - 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Costa Rica 0.030 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Cote d' Ivoire 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Croatia 0.037 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Cuba 0.043 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Cyprus 0.039 0.000 0.000 0 0 0
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

69

Name of Party

UN scale of

assessment for

year 2004-2006

Adjusted UN scale to

exclude

non-contributors

Adjusted UN scale with

22% maximum

assessment rate

considered

Year 2006

contributions by

Parties

Year 2007

contributions by

Parties

Year 2008

contributions by

Parties

Czech Republic 0.183 0.183 0.182 7,447 7,784 8,267

Democratic People's Republic of

Korea 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Denmark 0.718 0.718 0.714 29,218 30,539 32,436

Djibouti 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Dominica 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Dominican Republic 0.035 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Ecuador 0.019 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Egypt 0.120 0.120 0.119 4,883 5,104 5,421

El Salvador 0.022 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Eritrea 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Estonia 0.012 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Ethiopia 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

European Community 2.500 2.500 2.486 101,733 106,334 112,938

Fiji 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Finland 0.533 0.533 0.530 21,689 22,670 24,078

France 6.030 6.030 5.997 245,380 256,478 272,407

Gabon 0.009 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Gambia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Georgia 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Germany 8.662 8.662 8.614 352,484 368,427 391,309

Ghana 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Greece 0.530 0.530 0.527 21,567 22,543 23,943

Grenada 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Guatemala 0.030 0.000 0.000 0 0 0
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

70

Name of Party

UN scale of

assessment for

year 2004-2006

Adjusted UN scale to

exclude

non-contributors

Adjusted UN scale with

22% maximum

assessment rate

considered

Year 2006

contributions by

Parties

Year 2007

contributions by

Parties

Year 2008

contributions by

Parties

Guinea 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Guinea-Bissau 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Guyana 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Haiti 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Honduras 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Hungary 0.126 0.126 0.125 5,127 5,359 5,692

Iceland 0.034 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

India 0.421 0.421 0.419 17,132 17,907 19,019

Indonesia 0.142 0.142 0.141 5,778 6,040 6,415

Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.157 0.157 0.156 6,389 6,678 7,093

Ireland 0.350 0.350 0.348 14,243 14,887 15,811

Israel 0.467 0.467 0.464 19,004 19,863 21,097

Italy 4.885 4.885 4.858 198,786 207,777 220,682

Jamaica 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Japan 19.468 19.468 19.361 792,215 828,046 879,474

Jordan 0.011 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Kazakhstan 0.025 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Kenya 0.009 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Kiribati 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Kuwait 0.162 0.162 0.161 6,592 6,890 7,318

Kyrgyzstan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Latvia 0.015 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Lebanon 0.024 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Lesotho 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Liberia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

71

Name of Party

UN scale of

assessment for

year 2004-2006

Adjusted UN scale to

exclude

non-contributors

Adjusted UN scale with

22% maximum

assessment rate

considered

Year 2006

contributions by

Parties

Year 2007

contributions by

Parties

Year 2008

contributions by

Parties

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0.132 0.132 0.131 5,372 5,614 5,963

Liechtenstein 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Lithuania 0.024 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Luxembourg 0.077 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Madagascar 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Malawi 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Malaysia 0.203 0.203 0.202 8,261 8,634 9,171

Maldives 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Mali 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Malta 0.014 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Marshall Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Mauritania 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Mauritius 0.011 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Mexico 1.883 1.883 1.873 76,625 80,091 85,065

Micronesia (Federated State of) 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Monaco 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Mongolia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Morocco 0.047 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Mozambique 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Myanmar 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Namibia 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Nauru 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Nepal 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Netherlands 1.690 1.690 1.681 68,772 71,882 76,346

New Zealand 0.221 0.221 0.220 8,993 9,400 9,984

Nicaragua 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

72

Name of Party

UN scale of

assessment for

year 2004-2006

Adjusted UN scale to

exclude

non-contributors

Adjusted UN scale with

22% maximum

assessment rate

considered

Year 2006

contributions by

Parties

Year 2007

contributions by

Parties

Year 2008

contributions by

Parties

Niger 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Nigeria 0.042 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Niue - 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Norway 0.679 0.679 0.675 27,631 28,880 30,674

Oman 0.070 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Pakistan 0.055 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Palau 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Panama 0.019 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Papua New Guinea 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Paraguay 0.012 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Peru 0.092 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Philippines 0.095 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Poland 0.461 0.461 0.458 18,760 19,608 20,826

Portugal 0.470 0.470 0.467 19,126 19,991 21,232

Qatar 0.064 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Republic of Korea 1.796 1.796 1.786 73,085 76,391 81,135

Republic of Moldova 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Romania 0.060 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Russian Federation 1.100 1.100 1.094 44,763 46,787 49,693

Rwanda 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Saint Lucia 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Samoa 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Sao Tome and Principe 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Saudi Arabia 0.713 0.713 0.709 29,014 30,327 32,210
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

73

Name of Party

UN scale of

assessment for

year 2004-2006

Adjusted UN scale to

exclude

non-contributors

Adjusted UN scale with

22% maximum

assessment rate

considered

Year 2006

contributions by

Parties

Year 2007

contributions by

Parties

Year 2008

contributions by

Parties

Senegal 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Serbia 0.019 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Seychelles 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Sierra Leone 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Singapore 0.388 0.388 0.386 15,789 16,503 17,528

Slovakia 0.051 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Slovenia 0.082 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Solomon Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Somalia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

South Africa 0.292 0.292 0.290 11,882 12,420 13,191

Spain 2.520 2.520 2.506 102,547 107,185 113,842

Sri Lanka 0.017 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Sudan 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Suriname 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Swaziland 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Sweden 0.998 0.998 0.993 40,612 42,449 45,085

Switzerland 1.197 1.197 1.190 48,710 50,913 54,075

Syrian Arab Republic 0.038 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Tajikistan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Thailand 0.209 0.209 0.208 8,505 8,890 9,442

The Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Togo 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Tonga 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Trinidad and Tobago 0.022 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Tunisia 0.032 0.000 0.000 0 0 0
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

74

Name of Party

UN scale of

assessment for

year 2004-2006

Adjusted UN scale to

exclude

non-contributors

Adjusted UN scale with

22% maximum

assessment rate

considered

Year 2006

contributions by

Parties

Year 2007

contributions by

Parties

Year 2008

contributions by

Parties

Turkey 0.372 0.372 0.370 15,138 15,823 16,805

Turkmenistan 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Tuvalu 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Uganda 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Ukraine 0.039 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

United Arab Emirates 0.235 0.235 0.234 9,563 9,995 10,616

United Kingdom 6.127 6.127 6.093 249,327 260,604 276,789

United Republic of Tanzania 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

United States of America 22.000 22.000 21.879 895,250 935,741 993,858

Uruguay 0.048 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Uzbekistan 0.014 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Vanuatu 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Venezuela 0.171 0.171 0.170 6,959 7,273 7,725

Viet Nam 0.021 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Yemen 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Zambia 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Zimbabwe 0.007 0.000 0.000 0 0 0

Total 102.473 100.554 100.000 4,091,864 4,276,933 4,542,563
UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10

75

Annex III

Essential-use authorizations for 2007 and 2008 of chlorofluorocarbons for metered-dose inhalers

approved by the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties (in metric tonnes)

Party 2007 2008

Amount nominated Amount approved Amount nominated Amount approved

European Community 535 535 _ _

United States of America 385 385

_____________