Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0506-0079
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-08-23T04:00Z

K0470926
080404
UNITED
NATIONS
EP
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
United
Nations
Environment
Programme
Distr.:
General
27
March
2004
Original:
English
First
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
Montreal,
24
 
26
March
2004
Report
of
the
First
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
I.
Opening
of
the
Meeting.

1.
The
Meeting
was
opened
at
10.45
a.
m.
on
Wednesday,
24
March
2004,
by
the
President
of
the
Fifteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
Mr.
Jiri
Hlavacek
(
Czech
Republic).

A.
Statement
by
the
Executive
Director
of
the
United
Nations
Environment
Programme
2.
Mr.
Klaus
Töpfer,
Executive
Director
of
the
United
Nations
Environment
Programme
(
UNEP),
welcomed
participants
to
the
first
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties.
It
was
a
privilege
to
return
to
Montreal,
the
city
that
had
given
its
name
to
the
Protocol.
Over
the
years
the
Parties
had
developed
a
decision­
making
process,
marked
by
consensus,
which
ultimately
accommodated
all
competing
interests,
an
important
reason
for
the
success
of
the
Montreal
Protocol.
The
Montreal
Protocol
had
been
a
successful
environmental
regime,
and
its
success
could
not
be
overemphasized.
In
addition,
the
Multilateral
Fund
for
the
Implementation
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
had
been
important
in
meeting
the
needs
of
Article
5
Parties;
and
in
many
respects
the
Multilateral
Fund
had
been
a
pilot
project
for
the
Global
Environment
Facility.
Another
reason
for
the
Protocol's
success
was
the
sound
scientific
basis
laid
down
by
its
assessment
panels.

3.
He
pointed
out
that,
despite
its
success,
the
Montreal
Protocol
still
faced
a
number
of
challenges,
including
compliance
by
developing
countries,
which
had
recently
entered
the
compliance
phase
and
required
adequate
technical
and
financial
support.
The
production
of
new
substances
which
had
ozonedepleting
potential
but
were
not
listed
under
the
Protocol
also
had
significant
implications
for
human
health,
the
environment
and
sustainable
development.
Those
challenges
were
continuing
and
related
to
the
work
of
the
present
Meeting,
which
had
been
called
to
deal
specifically
with
the
agenda
items
linked
to
methyl
bromide
that
had
not
been
concluded
at
the
Fifteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties.
He
emphasized
that
it
was
vital
to
resolve
those
issues
as
the
effects
of
ozone­
depleting
substances
were
becoming
very
acute.
In
resolving
those
challenges
it
was
important
also
to
be
aware
of
the
interlinkages
between
the
multilateral
environmental
agreements
and
also
of
the
role
of
UNEP
as
the
linking
point
between
them.
UNEP
would
help
consolidate
the
work
of
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
would
also
build
on
the
work
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee.
In
order
to
do
so,
however,
a
better
understanding
of
the
scientific
issues
was
needed
in
the
context
of
the
methyl
bromide
phase­
out.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
2
B.
Statement
by
the
President
of
the
Fifteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
4.
Mr.
Hlavacek,
President
of
the
Fifteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
outlined
the
considerable
work
which
had
been
accomplished
since
the
Fifteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
build
consensus
at
the
current
Extraordinary
Meeting.
Two
informal
consultation
meetings
had
been
held,
in
Buenos
Aires
on
4
and
5
March
and
in
Montreal
on
23
March.
It
was
important
to
take
advantage
of
the
momentum
created
during
those
consultations
to
deal
successfully
with
methyl
bromide
issues,
in
which
critical­
use
exemptions
were
key,
as
were
the
implementation
of
existing
decisions
together
with
the
adoption
of
further
decisions
to
resolve
outstanding
matters
and
assist
in
the
implementation
of
the
Montreal
Protocol.
He
expressed
the
hope
that
the
outcome
of
the
current
Meeting
would
set
a
positive
tone
for
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
to
be
held
in
Prague
in
November.

C.
Opening
remarks
by
the
Executive
Secretary
5.
Mr.
Marco
González,
Executive
Secretary
of
the
Ozone
Secretariat,
welcomed
participants
and
emphasized
the
importance
of
the
issues
to
be
discussed
by
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties.

D.
Expression
of
condolences
6.
The
meeting
received
news
of
the
death
of
Mr.
Heinrich
Kraus
of
Germany,
former
Chair
of
the
Executive
Committee
of
the
Multilateral
Fund
and
ODS
Focal
Point
for
Germany.
Mr.
Kraus
was
also
Head
of
the
Division
of
Chemical
Safety,
Environmental
Effects
and
Protection
of
the
Ozone
Layer
of
the
Federal
Ministry
for
the
Environment,
Nature
Conservation
and
Nuclear
Safety.
Mr.
Kraus
had
been
an
active
member
of
the
"
Ozone
Family"
and
his
passing
was
greatly
regretted.

II.
Organizational
matters
A.
Attendance
7.
The
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
was
attended
by
representatives
of
the
following
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol:
Algeria,
Argentina,
Armenia,
Australia,
Austria,
Bahamas,
Bangladesh,
Barbados,
Belize,
Benin,
Bolivia,
Botswana,
Brazil,
Bulgaria,
Burkina
Faso,
Burundi,
Cambodia,
Canada,
Chile,
China,
Colombia,
Costa
Rica,
Côte
d'Ivoire,
Cuba,
Czech
Republic,
Denmark,
Djibouti,
Dominican
Republic,
Egypt,
El
Salvador,
Estonia,
Ethiopia,
Finland,
France,
Gabon,
Germany,
Ghana,
Greece,
Guatemala,
Guinea,
Honduras,
Hungary,
India,
Indonesia,
Israel,
Italy,
Jamaica,
Japan,
Jordan,
Kazakhstan,
Kenya,
Kiribati,
Kuwait,
Kyrgyzstan,
Lebanon,
Liechtenstein,
Lithuania,
Luxembourg,
Madagascar,
Malawi,
Malaysia,
Maldives,
Mali,
Mauritius,
Mexico,
Mongolia,
Morocco,
Mozambique,
Myanmar,
Namibia,
Netherlands,
New
Zealand,
Nicaragua,
Niger,
Nigeria,
Norway,
Oman,
Pakistan,
Papua
New
Guinea,
Peru,
Philippines,
Poland,
Qatar,
Republic
of
Korea,
Republic
of
Moldova,
Russian
Federation,
Rwanda,
Saint
Lucia,
Senegal,
Serbia
and
Montenegro,
Sierra
Leone,
Slovakia,
South
Africa,
Spain,
Sri
Lanka,
Sudan,
Swaziland,
Sweden,
Switzerland,
Syrian
Arab
Republic,
Thailand,
Togo,
Tunisia,
Turkey,
Uganda,
United
Kingdom
of
Great
Britain
and
Northern
Ireland,
United
Republic
of
Tanzania,
United
States
of
America,
Uruguay,
Venezuela,
Viet
Nam
and
Zambia.

8.
The
following
non­
Party
was
represented:
Bhutan.

9.
Representatives
of
the
following
United
Nations
bodies
and
specialized
agencies
also
attended:
secretariat
of
the
Global
Environment
Facility
(
GEF),
secretariat
of
the
Basel
Convention,
secretariat
of
the
Multilateral
Fund
for
the
Implementation
of
the
Montreal
Protocol,
Ozone
Secretariat,
the
United
Nations
Environment
Programme
(
UNEP),
the
UNEP
Division
of
Technology,
Industry
and
Economics,
the
United
Nations
Development
Programme
(
UNDP),
the
United
Nations
Industrial
Development
Organization
(
UNIDO)
and
the
World
Bank.

10.
The
following
non­
governmental
and
industry
bodies
were
also
represented:
Alliance
for
Responsible
Atmospheric
Policy,
California
Certified
Organic
Farmers,
California
Strawberry
Commission,
Crop
Protection
Coalition,
Environmental
Investigation
Agency,
Greenpeace,
National
Pest
Management
Association,
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council,
North
American
Millers
Association,
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
3
R&
M
Consultancy
Inc.,
SAFE­
European
Soil
Fumigators
Association;
Abell
Pest
Control,
Albemarle
Corporation,
Arvesta
Corporation,
Champion
Millennium
Chemicals
Inc.,
Dow
Agrosciences
LLC,
Florida
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Association,
Florida
Tomato
Exchange,
Fumigation,
Gardex
Chemicals
Ltd.,
Georgia
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Growers
Association,
Great
Lakes
Chemical
Corporation,
Hunton
&
Williams,
Industrial
Fumigant
Company,
Mellano
and
Company,
Methyl
Bromide
Global
Coalition,
ODS
Display,
Reddick
Fumigants
Inc.,
Research
and
Development
Center
for
Vegetable
Crops,
Structural
Pest
Management
Industry,
Sunshine
State
Carnations
Inc.
and
Trical
Inc.

11.
Observers
were
present
from
Agroquímicos
de
Levante,
American
Farm
Bureau
Federation,
Cal
Bean
and
Grain
Cooperative
Inc.,
California
Farm
Bureau
Federation,
Canadian
Atmosphere
Protection
Alliance,
Florida
Strawberry
Growers
Association,
Free
University
of
Berlin,
Hendrix
and
Dail,
ICF
Consulting,
McDermott,
Mebrom
NV,
Turfgrass
Producers
International,
United
States
Senate
and
Congress,
University
of
California
and
University
of
Florida.

B.
Adoption
of
the
agenda
12.
The
provisional
agenda
set
forth
in
document
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
1
was
adopted:

1.
Opening
of
the
meeting.

(
a)
Statement
by
the
Executive
Director
of
the
United
Nations
Environment
Programme;

(
b)
Statement
by
the
President
of
the
Fifteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol;

(
c)
Opening
remarks
by
the
Executive
Secretary.

2.
Organizational
matters:

(
a)
Adoption
of
the
agenda;*

(
b)
Organization
of
work;

(
c)
Credentials
of
representatives.

3.
Discussion
on
the
issues
and
on
draft
decisions:

(
a)
Adjustment
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
regarding
further
specific
interim
reductions
of
methyl
bromide
for
the
period
beyond
2005,
applicable
to
Article
5
Parties;

(
b)
Nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide;

(
c)
Conditions
for
granting
and
reporting
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide;

(
d)
Consideration
of
the
working
procedures
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
as
they
relate
to
the
evaluation
of
nominations
for
critical
use
exemptions.

4.
Adoption
of
the
report
of
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties.

5.
Closure
of
the
meeting.

*
See
annex
to
decision
XV/
56.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
4
C.
Organization
of
work
13.
It
was
decided
that
item
3
of
the
agenda
would
be
discussed
in
the
order
3
(
c),
3
(
b),
3
(
d)
and
3
(
a),
and
that
under
agenda
item
3
the
co­
chairs
of
the
informal
consultation
held
on
23
March
would
present
a
summary
of
the
consultation
and
the
Co­
Chair
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
would
give
a
presentation
on
the
14
February
2004
supplementary
report
on
critical­
use
nominations
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel.

D.
Credentials
of
representatives
14.
The
representative
of
the
Secretariat,
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
Bureau,
reported
that
the
Bureau
of
the
Fifteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
had
approved
the
credentials
of
the
representatives
of
74
Parties
out
of
the
113
represented
at
the
First
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties.
The
Bureau
had
also
provisionally
approved
the
representation
of
39
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.

III.
Discussion
on
the
issues
and
on
draft
decisions
A.
Presentation
by
the
co­
chairs
of
the
open­
ended
informal
consultation
held
in
Montreal
on
23
March
2004
15.
Mr.
Jukka
Uosukainen
(
Finland)
and
Mr.
Oladapo
Afolabi
(
Nigeria),
co­
chairs
of
the
open­
ended
informal
consultation
on
methyl
bromide
held
on
23
March
in
Montreal,
presented
a
summary
of
the
consultation.
The
one­
day
informal
consultation
had
been
arranged
by
the
Secretariat
on
the
recommendation
of
the
informal
consultation
held
on
4
and
5
March
in
Buenos
Aires.

16.
Mr.
Uosukainen
informed
the
Meeting
that
the
co­
chairs'
summary
would
attempt
to
capture
the
key
points
of
the
consultation
but
was
not
intended
to
be
an
exhaustive
account.
Four
issues
had
been
considered:
the
conditions
for
granting
and
reporting
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide;
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide;
consideration
of
the
working
procedures
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
as
they
related
to
the
evaluation
of
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions;
and
adjustment
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
regarding
further
specific
interim
reductions
of
methyl
bromide
for
the
period
beyond
2005,
applicable
to
Article
5
Parties.

17.
The
principles
to
be
considered
in
the
granting
of
critical­
use
exemptions
had
been
discussed,
as
had
the
list
of
elements
contained
in
paragraph
13
of
the
Buenos
Aires
meeting
report
(
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
INF/
1)
by
the
chair
of
the
informal
consultation
on
methyl
bromide,
held
in
Buenos
Aires
on
4
and
5
March,
and
there
had
been
agreement
to
forward
to
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
the
principles
of
fairness,
certainty
and
confidence,
practicality
and
flexibility,
and
transparency
governing
the
critical­
use
nomination
process
identified
in
paragraph
10
of
the
Buenos
Aires
report,
together
with
the
recommendation,
contained
in
paragraph
13
of
the
same
report,
on
the
study
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
study
of
potential
for
harmful
trade
in
surplus
methyl
bromide.
A
number
of
Parties
had
signalled
their
intention
to
produce
draft
decisions
on
various
issues
and
there
had
been
general
agreement
that
it
would
be
important
to
prioritize
items
so
that
those
issues
which
must
be
decided
by
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
were
clearly
identified.

18.
Mr.
Afolabi
observed
that
there
had
been
general
support
during
the
informal
consultation
for
multi­
year
exemptions
of
three
years.
Ensuring
reduction
in
critical­
use
exemptions
over
the
multi­
year
period
would
bring
certainty
to
both
manufacturers
and
consumers
of
methyl
bromide.
Several
non­
Article
5
Parties,
however,
had
expressed
the
view
that
a
scientifically
based
management
strategy
was
required
so
that
any
flexibility
under
the
multi­
year
approach
would
be
properly
justified.
In
addition,
the
United
States
of
America
had
explained
the
so­
called
"
double
cap"
concept
for
critical­
use
exemptions
within
the
multi­
year
framework
and
the
Parties
had
been
encouraged
to
work
with
the
United
States
of
America
to
prepare
a
draft
proposal
on
the
multi­
year
exemption
process.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
5
19.
Mr.
Uosukainen
reported
that
the
enormous
work
undertaken
by
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
in
evaluating
critical­
use
nominations
had
been
recognized.
A
need
to
improve
the
critical­
use
exemption
process
had
been
identified,
however,
including
a
need
for
further
guidance
to
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee.
To
improve
the
critical­
use
nomination
process,
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
should
be
reconstituted
in
accordance
with
paragraph
18
of
the
report
by
the
Chair
of
the
Buenos
Aires
informal
consultation
on
methyl
bromide.
As
a
minimum,
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
should
agree
on
a
process
and
a
timetable
for
the
revitalization
and
reconstitution
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee.
The
possibility
of
streamlining
the
critical­
use
exemption
process
also
needed
to
be
considered.

20.
Mr.
Afolabi
reported
that
a
proposal
for
introducing
further
interim
reductions
in
the
control
measures
for
methyl
bromide
applicable
to
Article
5
parties
had
been
discussed.
Although
there
had
been
no
agreement
on
the
timing
or
the
scale
of
the
interim
reduction
steps,
several
Parties
had
been
of
the
opinion
that
they
could
support
some
interim
reductions.
There
had
also
been
considerable
support
for
the
proposal
to
keep
the
issue
under
review
and
reconsider
it
at
the
Seventeenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties.

B.
Presentation
by
the
Co­
Chair
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
21.
Mr.
Jonathan
Banks
introduced
the
14
February
2004
supplementary
report
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
on
critical­
use
nominations.
He
explained
that
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
was
a
subsidiary
body
of
the
Panel
and
as
currently
constituted
had
35
members
and
two
co­
chairs,
one
from
an
Article
5
Party
and
the
other
from
a
non­
Article
5
Party.

22.
In
its
October
2003
supplementary
report
on
critical­
use
nominations,
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
had
reclassified
critical­
use
nominations
into
four
categories
based
on
its
view
of
their
technical
and
economic
feasibility
under
decision
IX/
6.
The
category
of
"
noted"
had
been
introduced
to
cover
those
situations
where
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
had
been
unable
to
determine
why
an
alternative
was
not
feasible
in
the
specific
circumstances
of
the
nomination,
but
had
accepted
the
statement
in
the
nomination
that
alternatives
had
not
been
appropriate.

23.
Subsequently
the
Panel
had
been
mandated
by
paragraph
3
of
decision
XV/
54
to
evaluate
the
critical­
use
nominations
for
methyl
bromide
that
had
been
categorized
as
"
noted"
and
to
recategorize
them
as
"
recommended",
"
not
recommended"
or
"
unable
to
assess".

24.
Nine
Parties
had
submitted
critical­
use
nominations
that
had
been
categorized
as
"
noted"
in
the
Panel's
supplementary
report
of
October
2003.
The
category
had
included
47
critical­
use
nominations
for
a
total
of
10,514
tonnes
of
methyl
bromide.
At
the
time
of
speaking,
44
of
those
nominations
had
been
recategorized
as
recommended,
either
wholly
or
in
part,
for
a
total
of
8,511
tonnes
of
methyl
bromide.
The
remainder
had
either
not
been
recommended
or
had
been
cut
by
the
nominating
Party.

25.
Nevertheless,
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
sought
further
guidance
in
interpreting
decision
IX/
6
with
respect
to
the
issues
of
economic
feasibility,
the
evaluation
of
multi­
year
nominations,
the
assessment
of
nominations
for
increases
in
methyl
bromide
use
and
critical­
use
nominations
for
equal
amounts
of
methyl
bromide
over
several
years;
it
needed
guidance
also
on
how
to
deal
with
nominations
for
small
quantities
of
methyl
bromide,
on
the
requirements
for
phase­
out
plans
and
on
what
level
of
effort
to
evaluate,
commercialize
and
secure
national
regulatory
approval
of
alternatives
and
substitutes
should
be
deemed
"
appropriate"
in
the
terms
of
decision
IX/
6.

26.
The
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
had
also
noted
that
approval
of
critical­
use
nominations
for
more
than
one
year
at
a
time
might
discourage
further
development
and
adoption
of
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide.
In
addition,
a
substantial
number
of
critical­
use
nominations
had
had
to
be
classified
as
"
recommended"
because
national
and
local
regulations
did
not
permit
the
use
of
alternatives
even
when
they
were
available.

27.
He
provided
a
summary
of
critical­
use
nominations
for
2005:
total
initial
nominations
for
the
2003
round
had
been
15,838
tonnes;
13,158
tonnes
had
been
recommended
by
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
and
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
for
2005;
and
2004
critical­
use
nominations
for
2005
had
totalled
2,584
tonnes.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
6
C.
General
discussion
28.
Several
representatives
expressed
thanks
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
for
organizing
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
and
the
two
informal
consultations
and
appreciation
for
the
work
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
and
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel.
Representatives
also
highlighted
the
usefulness
of
the
informal
consultations
on
methyl
bromide
which
had
been
held
in
Buenos
Aires
on
4
and
5
March
and
in
Montreal
on
23
March.

29.
Several
representatives
voiced
the
opinion
that
the
large
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
nominated
for
critical­
use
exemptions,
and
recommended
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel,
were
cause
for
concern
in
that
they
placed
certain
Article
5
Parties
that
were
making
efforts
to
achieve
accelerated
phase­
out,
and
were
managing
to
reach
targets
ahead
of
schedule,
at
a
disadvantage
in
terms
of
market
competitiveness.
They
also
had
the
effect
of
encouraging
a
cautious
approach
on
the
part
of
those
countries,
and
could
even
undermine
existing
methyl
bromide
phase­
out
efforts,
whether
undertaken
voluntarily
or
under
agreements
with
the
Multilateral
Fund.
The
political
and
financial
costs
borne
by
Article
5
Parties
to
achieve
phase­
out
should
not
be
underestimated.
According
to
some
representatives,
the
success
of
Article
5
Parties
in
that
respect
was
proof
that
the
adjustment
of
the
schedule
for
the
introduction
of
interim
methyl
bromide
reductions
which
was
being
proposed
by
the
European
Community
could
work
for
all
Parties.

30.
Some
representatives
expressed
concern
that
the
continued
granting
of
high
levels
of
critical­
use
exemptions
would
affect
the
integrity
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
by
taking
it
in
a
very
different
direction
from
the
course
plotted
when
the
methyl
bromide
phase­
out
schedule
was
originally
set.
One
representative
expressed
the
view
that
Parties
intending
to
submit
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions
in
the
future
should
be
asked
to
make
a
formal
commitment
to
reduce
methyl
bromide
amounts
for
critical
uses
in
subsequent
years,
and
submit
a
methyl
bromide
reduction
plan.
Steps
should
also
be
taken
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
to
verify
the
implementation
of
such
reduction
plans
on
site.

31.
The
view
was
also
expressed,
however,
that
too
little
flexibility
could
block
consensus
on
the
issue
of
methyl
bromide
phase­
out
and
could
obstruct
the
achievement
of
Montreal
Protocol
objectives.
The
matter
of
making
commitments
to
future
reductions
in
nominated
amounts
for
critical
uses
could
be
problematic
for
Parties
that
were
already
making
enormous
efforts
to
phase
out
methyl
bromide
and
had
very
little
room
for
manoeuvre.
A
few
representatives
took
the
view
that
critical­
use
exemptions
were
potentially
very
important
to
Article
5
Parties
with
agriculture­
dependent
economies,
and
that
consideration
should
be
given
to
granting
such
exemptions
to
those
countries
to
put
them
on
a
par
with
non­
Article
5
Parties.

32.
There
was
general
recognition
that
the
issue
of
critical­
use
exemptions
in
the
context
of
methyl
bromide
phase­
out
was
technically
complex,
and
that
many
interests
were
at
stake.
A
factor
in
that
complexity
was
the
availability
of
technically
and
economically
viable
alternatives.
A
few
representatives
pointed
to
the
need
for
additional
funds
to
help
Article
5
Parties
find
such
alternatives.
One
representative
of
an
Article
5
Party
called
for
the
registration
of
new
and
existing
alternatives
and
their
dissemination,
to
promote
awareness
among
potential
users.
The
view
was
also
expressed
that
it
was
necessary
to
give
Parties
enough
time
to
test
alternatives,
since
they
were
often
dependent
on
specific
conditions
and
were
therefore
not
always
equally
applicable
from
country
to
country.
Nevertheless,
several
countries
supported
the
recommendation
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
to
grant
critical­
use
exemptions
exclusively
on
a
yearly
basis,
in
order
to
create
an
incentive
for
Parties
to
develop
and
apply
alternatives
more
quickly.

33.
Several
representatives
were
of
the
opinion
that
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
required
more
precise
guidelines
and
more
accurate
tools
to
carry
out
its
assessment
of
critical­
use
nominations.
One
representative
stressed
that
consideration
must
be
given
to
restructuring
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
in
order
to
enhance
its
performance.
Another
representative
drew
attention
to
the
principles
of
fairness,
certainty
and
confidence,
practicality,
flexibility
and
transparency
as
essential
to
developing
further
guidance
on
the
conditions
for
granting
and
reporting
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide.
In
addition,
creative,
constructive
approaches
were
needed
as
Parties
worked
hard
to
find
effective
approaches
to
dealing
with
the
issue.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
7
34.
One
representative
requested
clarification
from
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
regarding
the
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
to
assess
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions,
noting
that
the
quantity
for
the
standard
application
method
had
risen
from
300
kg/
ha
to
between
350
and
450
kg/
ha
since
the
previous
assessment
report.
The
representative
asked
whether
those
revised
application
rates
had
also
been
applied
in
assessing
nominations
for
critical
uses
using
the
hot­
gas
application
method.
Mr.
Jonathan
Banks,
Co­
Chair
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
clarified
that
the
60
g/
m2
rate
for
hot­
gas
applications
under
polythene
had
not
been
changed.
That
method
of
application
was
used
for
only
a
few
specialized
processes.

35.
A
representative
of
a
non­
Article
5
Party
expressed
the
view
that
the
proposed
30
per
cent
cap
on
methyl
bromide
amounts
nominated
for
critical­
use
exemptions,
if
accepted
by
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
would
send
a
misleading
message
to
farmers
in
his
country,
who
had
been
making
sustained
efforts
to
eliminate
the
use
of
methyl
bromide.

36.
The
representative
of
a
non­
governmental
organization
representing
strawberry
growers
in
California
stated
that
his
organization
supported
the
critical­
use
exemption
procedure
and
was
fully
committed
to
a
transition
to
alternatives,
which
were
already
used
on
more
than
30
per
cent
of
the
acreage
cultivated
by
his
organization's
members.
The
availability
of
alternatives
was
sometimes
still
constrained,
however,
by
local
regulations
and
other
factors
such
as
soil
types
and
difficulty
of
application
on
steep
slopes.
Too
forced
a
transition
would
create
real
problems:
a
gradual
phase­
in
of
alternatives
was
essential
or
long­
term
progress
would
be
jeopardized.
In
that
connection,
he
expressed
the
belief
that
the
volume
of
critical­
use
exemptions
recommended
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
for
2005
was
too
low
and
requested
a
revised
figure
of
1,542
tonnes,
which
was
still
lower
than
the
original
request.

37.
Mr.
Jonathan
Banks,
Co­
Chair
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
observed
that
a
number
of
the
critical­
use
nominations
which
the
Committee
had
considered
suffered
from
the
same
problem:
although
alternatives
were
available,
their
implementation
was
constrained
by
the
speed
of
transition.
The
Committee
understood
that
it
was
impossible
to
switch
an
industry
over
in
a
single
day
or
even
a
single
season.
Given
the
strength
of
the
argument
put
forward
by
the
previous
speaker,
he
recommended
that
the
figure
should
be
revisited
and
expressed
agreement
with
the
request
for
a
revised
volume
of
1,542
tonnes.

38.
The
representative
of
the
European
Community,
objected,
however,
observing
that
it
was
unfair,
among
others,
to
European
Community
member
States
without
representatives
present,
who
might
well
have
wished
to
argue
for
similar
revisions
in
volumes:
the
Panel,
having
a
set
procedure,
ought
to
stick
to
it,
and
should
not
change
the
figures
whenever
they
happened
to
be
requested
to
do
so.
He
requested
clarification
from
the
Panel
as
to
what
procedures
it
was
following.

39.
Mr.
Banks,
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
subsequently
provided
a
clarification
of
his
comments:
he
had
not
intended
to
imply
that
a
revised
report
of
critical­
use
nominations
would
be
published.
He
had
repeated
the
number
suggested
by
the
representative
of
the
California
strawberry
growers
but
had
not
intended
to
endorse
that
amount.
He
stressed
that
all
decisions
on
critical­
use
exemptions
were
made
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
that
there
was
an
established
process
for
consideration
of
critical­
use
nominations.
He
also
mentioned
that
a
corrigendum
to
the
14
February
2004
supplementary
report
on
critical­
use
nominations
would
be
issued
to
reflect
the
corrected
figures
for
Italy.

40.
The
representative
of
the
United
States
of
America
requested
that
the
issue
of
a
possible
adjustment
to
the
figure
for
the
critical­
use
exemption
for
strawberry
growing
in
the
United
States
should
be
scheduled
for
discussion
at
the
meeting
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
from
28
March
to
1
April.
Mr
Banks
asked
for
details
to
be
provided
of
the
new
tonnage
requested
and
a
brief
summary
of
the
arguments
for
the
change.
The
Meeting
agreed
that
the
Committee
should
discuss
the
issue
at
its
next
meeting.

41.
Responding
to
another
question
about
the
nomination
by
Spain
for
methyl
bromide
for
strawberries,
Mr.
Banks
recalled
that
the
14
February
supplementary
report
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
had
noted
that
that
Party
might
wish
to
provide
further
information.
The
representative
of
Spain
clarified
that
the
additional
information
requested
had
been
supplied
to
the
Committee,
and
suggested
that
the
matter
could
therefore
be
decided
by
the
current
Meeting
of
the
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
8
Parties.
After
further
discussion
in
the
contact
group
on
critical­
use
nominations,
the
Meeting
decided
to
grant
the
additional
quantity
requested
by
Spain.

42.
Mr.
Banks
also
pointed
out
that
due
process
did
not
permit
the
Committee
to
amend
its
recommendations
in
the
middle
of
a
Meeting
of
the
Parties.
The
Panel
and
its
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
could
recommend
critical­
use
nominations
only
as
instructed
by
the
Parties,
and
only
according
to
the
submission
and
review
schedule
prescribed
by
the
Parties.
There
were
therefore
two
options:
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
could
either
decide
to
grant
some
or
all
of
the
additional
quantity
requested,
or
it
could
ask
the
Committee
to
assess
further
the
disputed
quantity
at
its
meeting
beginning
on
28
March,
which
would
allow
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
reach
a
decision
in
November.

43.
The
representative
of
an
environmental
non­
governmental
organization
observed
that,
although
the
United
States
stood
out
because
of
the
high
volume
of
its
critical­
use
nominations,
it
was
not
alone
in
making
excessive
requests.
He
identified
five
steps
as
crucial
in
achieving
rapid
phase­
out:
first,
a
reduction
in
requests
for
critical­
use
exemptions
in
the
light
of
progress
made
in
developing
alternatives
since
the
original
nominations
had
been
made,
aiming
for
a
2005
total
of
less
than
30
per
cent
of
baseline;
second,
a
reduction
in
production
of
methyl
bromide,
consequent
on
that
same
progress
with
alternatives;
third,
the
full
use
by
Parties
of
their
stockpiles
of
methyl
bromide,
as
requested
by
the
Parties
in
decision
IX/
6.
In
that
connection,
data
recently
reported
in
the
United
States
of
America
suggested
existing
stockpiles
there
of
more
than
40
per
cent
of
baseline
consumption,
a
figure
which
could
be
indicative
of
the
situation
elsewhere.
Fourth,
full
attention
should
be
paid
to
health
and
safety
issues,
particularly
given
recent
reports
of
increases
in
levels
of
prostate
cancer
in
workers
exposed
to
methyl
bromide;
and
fifth,
the
Panel's
proposal
for
offsets
through
the
destruction
of
other
ozone­
depleting
substances
should
be
treated
seriously.
In
those
ways,
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
could
be
phased
out
rather
than
increased
and
the
integrity
of
the
world's
most
successful
multilateral
environmental
agreement
would
be
protected.

44.
At
the
President's
suggestion,
two
open­
ended
contact
groups
were
established
to
consider
the
issues
under
discussion
in
greater
detail.
The
first
contact
group,
on
critical­
use
nominations,
would
be
convened
by
Finland
and
Nigeria
and
the
second,
on
conditions
for
critical­
use
exemptions,
would
be
convened
by
Canada
and
Mexico.
The
convenors
of
each
group
would
coordinate
with
each
other
to
ensure
that
the
subjects
discussed
did
not
overlap.

45.
The
representative
of
Argentina
commented
that
her
country
wished
to
submit
a
draft
decision
on
the
situation
of
Article
5
Parties
facing
difficulties
in
complying
with
their
agreements
with
the
Executive
Committee
of
the
Multilateral
Fund.
The
President
concurred
that
the
issue
should
be
discussed
in
the
contact
group
on
critical­
use
nominations.

46.
A
draft
decision
submitted
by
Guatemala,
on
reaffirming
the
obligation
to
phase
out
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide,
and
two
draft
decisions
submitted
by
Burkina
Faso,
Burundi,
Cameroon,
Côte
d'Ivoire,
Democratic
Republic
of
the
Congo,
Mali,
Niger
and
Senegal,
relating
to
the
conclusions
of
the
regional
workshop
on
experiences
in
using
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide,
held
in
Dakar
from
8
to
11
March,
were
also
put
before
the
meeting.
In
response
to
a
point
of
order
raised
by
one
delegation,
however,
it
was
ruled
that
they
related
to
issues
not
on
the
agenda
of
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
and
it
was
therefore
decided
to
refer
them
to
the
Open­
ended
Working
Group
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
for
consideration
at
its
twenty­
fourth
session,
to
be
held
in
Geneva
in
July.

47.
A
request
was
made
for
the
results
of
the
Dakar
workshop
to
be
summarized
by
the
Secretariat
and
circulated
to
the
Parties
to
provide
them
with
the
necessary
background
information
by
the
time
that
they
came
to
consider
the
draft
decision
arising
out
of
the
workshop's
conclusions,
in
July
at
the
twenty­
fourth
session
of
the
Open­
ended
Working
Group.
A
request
was
also
made
for
the
Secretariat
to
provide
a
cost
estimate
for
translations
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
assessment
reports.

48.
Subsequently,
a
third
open­
ended
contact
group
was
established
to
consider
the
issue
of
the
working
procedures
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
as
they
related
to
evaluation
of
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions.
That
contact
group
was
chaired
by
the
Philippines
and
Poland.

49.
The
outcomes
of
the
contact
groups
are
reflected
under
the
appropriate
agenda
items
below.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
9
D.
Statements
by
non­
governmental
organizations
50.
At
the
close
of
the
general
discussion,
representatives
of
a
further
three
non­
governmental
organizations
made
statements.

51.
The
representative
of
an
organization
of
organic
farmers
in
California
described
her
activities
as
an
agricultural
researcher
and
strawberry
farmer.
Her
work
had
led
her
to
eschew
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
as
irresponsible.
She
urged
Parties
to
look
very
carefully
at
the
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions:
the
commodity
groups
pressuring
Governments
for
critical­
use
nominations
had
long
been
aware
of
the
need
to
phase
out
methyl
bromide.
Individual
economic
gain
could
not
be
given
greater
importance
than
the
integrity
of
the
ozone
layer
and
human
health.

52.
The
representative
of
an
environmental
non­
governmental
organization
expressed
regret
that
the
lessons
learned
over
the
years
in
the
process
of
enforcing
phase­
out
of
ozone­
depleting
substances
all
over
the
world
seemed
to
have
been
ignored
in
the
discussion
on
methyl
bromide.
It
was
particularly
worrisome
since
the
chemical
was
as
dangerous
to
human
health
on
the
ground
as
it
was
in
the
stratosphere.
Furthermore,
methyl
bromide
constituted
a
security
threat
because,
among
other
things,
stockpiles
were
becoming
potential
targets
for
terrorist
attacks.
At
a
time
when
there
were
signs
that
illicit
stockpiling,
oversupply
and
dumping
in
developing
countries
were
on
the
rise,
it
was
increasingly
urgent
to
know
who
was
stockpiling
methyl
bromide,
where
it
was
being
stockpiled
and
where
it
was
going.
On
behalf
of
his
organization
he
therefore
urged
the
Parties
to
take
full
account
of
stockpiles
before
granting
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide,
as
required
by
decision
IX/
6,
and
to
delay
any
multi­
year
decisions
on
such
exemptions
until
stockpiles
were
fully
identified
and
secured,
a
tracking
system
for
national
distribution
was
developed
and
measures
to
control
international
illegal
trade
were
in
place.

53.
The
representative
of
another
environmental
non­
governmental
organization
said
that
his
organization
was
proud
of
its
contribution
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
did
not
like
to
see
it
undermined:
the
proposal
by
some
Parties
that
critical­
use
exemptions
could
exceed
30
per
cent
of
baseline,
bringing
methyl
bromide
above
phase­
out
levels,
sent
the
message
that
the
needs
of
the
largest
users
in
the
world
carried
more
weight
than
the
efforts
of
smaller
countries
to
phase
out
methyl
bromide
early.
Multi­
year
critical­
use
exemption
guarantees
amounted
to
a
blank
cheque
for
the
indefinite
use
of
methyl
bromide
and
threatened
to
unravel
commitments
to
accelerated
phase­
out
in
Article
5
Parties.
Efforts
must
be
made
to
report
and
track
methyl
bromide
use,
which
should
not
be
overly
difficult
to
achieve
since
it
was
a
single
substance
with
a
short
list
of
users
and
handlers.
He
noted
that
the
chemical
was
due
for
re­
registration
in
the
United
States
and
wondered
how
long
that
process
would
take
and
whether,
when
completed,
re­
registration
would
restrict
uses
of
the
methyl
bromide
currently
included
in
the
amounts
nominated
for
critical
use
exemptions.

E.
Declaration
on
limitations
on
the
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
54.
The
Meeting
took
note
of
the
declaration
on
limitations
on
the
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
sponsored
by
a
number
of
Parties.
The
declaration
is
reproduced
in
annex
IV
to
the
present
report.

F.
Adjustment
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
regarding
further
specific
interim
reductions
of
methyl
bromide
for
the
period
beyond
2005,
applicable
to
Article
5
Parties
55.
The
representative
of
Argentina
introduced
a
draft
decision
on
further
adjustments
to
the
control
schedules
for
methyl
bromide
for
Article
5
Parties,
observing
that
it
put
into
words
the
outcome
of
the
informal
consultations
held
in
Buenos
Aires
and
Montreal.
While
the
timetable
for
interim
reductions
between
2005
and
2015
proposed
by
the
European
Community
had
its
merits,
it
would
not
be
possible
for
Article
5
Parties
to
agree
to
them
until
they
knew
the
outcome
of
the
current
discussions
on
critical­
use
exemptions.
It
would
be
appropriate,
therefore,
to
return
to
the
issue
later,
and
the
most
appropriate
time
would
be
when
the
next
replenishment
of
the
Multilateral
Fund
was
being
discussed,
at
the
Seventeenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
which
would
allow
suitable
funding
to
be
earmarked
for
the
additional
phase­
out
efforts
that
would
be
required.

56.
The
representative
of
the
European
Community
responded
that
Argentina's
proposed
timetable
was
problematic;
leaving
discussion
of
the
new
interim
reduction
steps
to
the
same
Meeting
of
the
Parties
that
was
due
to
decide
on
the
next
replenishment
of
the
Multilateral
Fund
would
not
allow
enough
time
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
10
for
proper
consideration,
as
the
replenishment
could
not
be
properly
debated
until
after
the
new
reductions
had
been
agreed.
He
was
also
unhappy
with
the
proposal
in
the
draft
decision
to
revisit,
rather
than
to
decide
on
or
to
agree
to,
the
possible
adjustment,
as
decision
IX/
5
was
quite
clear
that
new
reduction
steps
should
have
been
agreed
in
2003.
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
studies
had
regularly
shown
that
Article
5
Parties
were
making
good
progress
with
phasing
out
methyl
bromide,
and
total
use
would
be
halved
by
2007
under
existing
projects
agreed
with
the
Executive
Committee
of
the
Multilateral
Fund.
Interim
reduction
steps
would
be
helpful
in
ensuring
that
Article
5
Parties
moved
from
80
per
cent
of
baseline
to
zero
in
an
orderly
fashion,
and
that
the
existing
momentum
behind
phase­
out
was
maintained.

57.
Representatives
of
several
Article
5
Parties
expressed
agreement
with
Argentina's
proposal,
underlining
the
need
to
know
with
certainty
the
future
development
of
critical­
use
exemptions
in
non­
Article
5
Parties
before
any
further
reductions
for
Article
5
Parties
could
be
agreed.
Circumstances
had
changed
since
decision
IX/
5
was
taken,
and
the
size
of
the
reduction
steps
themselves
would
depend
on
the
total
volume
of
critical­
use
exemptions
agreed.
If,
as
seemed
likely,
that
volume
was
relatively
high
in
both
2004
and
2005,
it
would
undermine
the
case
for
any
significant
reductions
in
Article
5
Parties:
it
would
not
be
possible
to
persuade
users
of
methyl
bromide
in
some
countries
to
accelerate
phase­
out
while
users
in
other
countries
were
actually
increasing
their
use.

58.
Other
representatives,
however,
concurred
with
the
representative
of
the
European
Community:
it
would
be
impossible
to
conduct
a
study
on
the
next
replenishment
of
the
Fund
unless
the
new
control
schedules
had
been
agreed
beforehand,
and
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
was
therefore
the
latest
point
at
which
the
decision
could
be
taken.
One
representative
suggested
the
possibility
of
conducting
the
study
for
the
replenishment
taking
into
account
the
possibility
of
the
new
interim
reduction
steps
proposed
by
the
European
Community.

59.
After
a
discussion
of
possible
modifications
to
the
text
of
the
draft
decision,
Argentina
and
the
European
Community
agreed
to
work
together
to
present
a
revised
wording
to
the
plenary
session.

60.
Subsequently,
the
representative
of
Argentina
introduced
a
revised
draft
decision.
Regarding
the
future
interim
reductions
in
methyl
bromide,
a
number
of
representatives
observed
that
there
was
no
guarantee
that
any
would
be
agreed,
and
the
Meeting
consequently
decided
to
change
the
wording
to
"
further"
interim
reductions.
A
number
of
representatives
objected
to
the
commitment
to
consider
possible
interim
reductions
at
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
and
the
Meeting
decided
to
change
the
timing
of
the
consideration
of
further
interim
reductions
to
"
preferably
by
2006".

61.
Some
representatives
of
Article
5
Parties
stated
their
objection
to
the
principle
underlying
the
draft
decision,
on
the
grounds
that
it
took
no
account
of
the
impact
on
Article
5
Parties
of
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide
in
non­
Article
5
Parties;
Article
5
Parties
should
not
be
expected
to
agree
to
any
further
interim
reductions
until
that
impact
on
them
was
clear.
The
Meeting
therefore
agreed
to
add
a
preambular
paragraph
referring
to
the
date,
1
February
2006,
thereby
sending
a
strong
signal
on
the
phase­
out
of
critical
uses.
On
that
basis,
the
draft
decision
was
adopted
as
decision
Ex.
I/
1.
The
text
of
the
decision
is
contained
in
chapter
IV
below.

62.
Some
representatives,
however,
still
objected
to
the
possibility
of
discussing
interim
reductions
for
Article
5
Parties
before
the
stated
date,
and
the
representative
of
Uganda
in
particular
reserved
his
position
on
the
issue
and
requested
that
that
fact
should
be
recorded
in
the
report
of
the
Meeting.
Another
representative
wondered
whether
the
extra
preambular
paragraph
needed
to
be
there
at
all,
as
it
seemed
to
prejudge
the
signal
which
the
national
management
strategies
might
give;
in
response,
the
President
suggested
that
that
and
other
issues
could
be
taken
up
at
the
twenty­
fourth
meeting
of
the
Open­
ended
Working
Group.
It
was
so
agreed.

63.
The
representative
of
Guatemala
introduced
a
draft
decision
on
time
constraints
on
phase­
out
schedules.
He
subsequently
withdrew
the
draft
decision,
however,
because,
in
its
current
form,
some
parts
of
it
overlapped
with
another
draft
decision
under
consideration
by
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
and
stated
his
intention
to
submit
a
revised
version
on
a
future
occasion.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
11
G.
Nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide
64.
The
contact
group
on
critical­
use
nominations
met
several
times
to
consider
issues
related
to
critical­
use
nominations,
in
particular,
the
14
February
supplementary
report
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel,
as
well
as
draft
decisions
of
Argentina,
the
European
Community
and
the
United
States
of
America.

65.
One
of
the
co­
chairs
of
the
contact
group
on
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide
introduced
the
draft
decision
on
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions,
stressing
that
the
deliberations
which
had
produced
the
compromise
text
now
before
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
had
been
both
long
and
arduous.
The
draft
decision
retained
the
spirit
of
one­
year
exemptions,
and
the
figures
recommended
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel,
but
left
open
the
possibility
of
future
work
on
the
multi­
year
approach.
Another
representative
expressed
the
view
that
those
intent
on
protecting
the
environment
and
human
health
would
have
liked
to
see
more
reductions
in
critical
use
exemptions.
The
compromise
text
did,
however,
represent
a
step
forward,
was
the
result
of
sacrifice
by
all
Parties,
and
showed
a
continuing
commitment
towards
the
Montreal
Protocol.

66.
The
representative
of
Argentina
introduced
a
revised
draft
decision
on
flexibility
in
dealing
with
the
case
of
Article
5
Parties
which
encountered
difficulties
in
meeting
their
accelerated
phase­
out
commitments.
The
draft
decision
was
adopted
as
decision
Ex.
I/
2.
The
text
of
the
decision
is
contained
in
chapter
IV
below.

67.
The
draft
decision
on
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide
was
adopted
as
decision
Ex.
I/
3.
The
text
of
the
decision
is
contained
in
chapter
IV
below.

H.
Conditions
for
granting
and
reporting
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide
68.
The
contact
group
on
conditions
for
critical­
use
exemptions
met
several
times
to
consider
the
elements
relevant
to
the
conditions
contained
in
various
draft
decisions,
and
in
particular
to
reconcile
the
proposed
draft
decisions
of
the
United
States
of
America
and
the
European
Community
on
conditions
related
to
critical­
use
exemptions
into
a
single
draft
decision
and
to
consider
the
requirements
for
annual
reporting
on
critical­
use
exemptions
as
set
forth
in
the
submission
by
Australia.
The
co­
chair
of
the
contact
group
stressed
the
good
will
which
had
existed
amongst
the
participants
of
the
contact
group
and
also
the
concerns
expressed
by
a
number
of
participants
about
the
overall
commitment
to
reduce
critical­
use
nominations.

69.
The
representative
of
the
Dominican
Republic
introduced
a
draft
decision
calling
for
a
study
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
of
the
possible
adverse
impacts
on
Article
5
Parties
of
critical­
use
exemptions
in
non­
Article
5
Parties,
with
the
intention
of
helping
to
create
fairness,
certainty
and
balance.
He
had
first
raised
the
issue
at
the
Fourteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
in
Rome
in
2002,
but
had
modified
the
text
significantly
since
then
to
include
among
its
other
elements
a
three­
year
limit
on
critical­
use
exemptions
and
a
reduction
in
their
amounts
thereafter;
he
clarified
that
those
limits
and
amounts
were
intended
to
apply
to
non­
Article
5
Parties
only.

70.
One
representative
expressed
surprise
that,
after
extensive
modification
of
the
original
proposal
and
after
discussions
extending
over
many
months,
some
of
the
original
ideas
and
text
seemed
to
have
been
reintroduced.
In
addition,
some
of
the
points
in
the
proposal
were
already
being
covered
by
the
contact
groups,
while
others
seemed
to
be
inaccurately
worded.
Another
representative
doubted
the
validity
of
linking
trade­
related
impacts
and
critical­
use
exemptions,
observing
that
the
argument
cut
both
ways:
non­
Article
5
Parties
could
just
as
legitimately
complain
about
the
trade­
related
impacts
of
providing
funding
to
enterprises
in
Article
5
Parties
which
were
competing
with
their
own
enterprises.
He
also
opposed
the
proposal
in
the
draft
decision
to
grant
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
the
power
to
decide
renewals
of
critical­
use
exemptions,
as
that
power
was
reserved
to
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties.

71.
Representatives
of
many
Article
5
Parties
supported
the
draft
decision,
observing
that
it
was
an
important
signal
of
possible
problems
that
might
arise
for
Article
5
Parties
which
phased
out
methyl
bromide
faster
than
non­
Article
5
Parties
enjoying
substantial
critical­
use
exemptions;
indeed,
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
Supplementary
Report
of
February
2004
had
accepted
that
the
issue
was
a
real
one.
Farmers
in
Article
5
Parties
who
were
not
permitted
to
use
methyl
bromide
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
12
could
hardly
be
expected
to
compete
with
farmers
in
non­
Article
5
Parties
continuing
to
use
the
substance
to
produce
the
same
crop.
It
was
important,
therefore,
to
develop
substantial
flexibility
in
implementing
early
phase­
out
projects,
which
had
been
initially
agreed,
in
good
faith,
on
the
assumption
that
non­
Article
5
Parties
would
cease
to
use
methyl
bromide
except
for
relatively
small
quantities.
If
Article
5
Parties
suffered
from
the
same
problems
with
introducing
alternatives
that
non­
Article
5
Parties
appeared
to
be
experiencing,
they
should
be
able
to
enjoy
the
same
access
to
critical­
use
exemptions.

72.
The
issue
of
the
impact
on
Article
5
Parties
of
critical­
use
exemptions
in
non­
Article
5
Parties
did
not
appear
to
have
been
taken
up
in
the
contact
groups
on
critical­
use
nominations
and
conditions
for
exemptions,
and
the
commitment
to
the
principles
of
certainty
and
predictability
expressed
in
Buenos
Aires
seemed
to
be
missing
from
their
outputs.
The
issue
would
not
go
away
until
it
was
settled
satisfactorily.
The
principle
of
an
overall
limit
on
critical­
use
exemptions,
and
a
requirement
to
subsequent
reduction
in
total
volume,
was
crucial.

73.
One
of
the
co­
chairs
of
the
contact
group
on
conditions
for
critical­
use
exemptions
accepted
that
a
reference
to
the
principles
identified
in
Buenos
Aires
had
been
inadvertently
omitted
from
the
draft
decision
agreed
by
the
contact
group,
and
could
usefully
be
added,
but
did
not
accept,
however,
the
contention
that
the
Buenos
Aires
principles
had
not
informed
the
work
of
the
group.

74.
The
representative
of
the
Dominican
Republic
agreed
to
revise
the
wording
of
the
draft
decision
which
he
had
submitted
and
to
re­
present
it.
Subsequently,
however,
he
announced
that,
having
discussed
the
matter
with
the
representative
of
Argentina
and
having
studied
the
text
of
decision
Ex.
I/
2,
he
believed
that
the
gist
of
his
proposal
was
contained
in
that
decision
and
accordingly
withdrew
the
revised
draft
decision
which
he
had
submitted.

75.
The
meeting
considered
the
revised
draft
decision
on
conditions
related
to
the
authorization
of
methyl
bromide
exempted
for
critical
use,
which
was
adopted
as
decision
Ex.
I/
4.
The
text
of
the
decision
is
contained
in
chapter
IV
below.
It
was
decided
at
the
time
of
adoption
of
the
decision
that
it
was
indeed
important
to
make
explicit
reference
to
the
principles
elaborated
by
the
Buenos
Aires
informal
consultation.

76.
The
Australian
submission
on
the
requirements
for
annual
reporting
of
critical­
use
exemptions
was
adopted
as
an
annex
to
decision
Ex.
I/
4,
and
is
reproduced
in
annex
I
to
the
present
report.

I.
Consideration
of
the
working
procedures
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
as
they
relate
to
the
evaluation
of
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions
77.
One
of
the
co­
chair
of
the
contact
group
on
the
agenda
item
introduced
a
revised
draft
decision
which
included
two
paragraphs
which
still
contained
text
in
square
brackets.
On
the
inclusion
of
text
listing
the
categories
into
which
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
should
place
the
critical­
use
nominations
as
a
result
of
its
assessment,
the
Meeting
decided
to
include
additional
text
recalling
decision
XV/
54,
which
had
originally
identified
the
categories
of
"
recommended",
"
not
recommended"
and
"
unable
to
assess",
and
to
list
those
categories
again
in
the
decision,
thereby
extending
their
application
beyond
the
terms
of
decision
XV/
54,
which
had
applied
only
to
the
"
noted"
category.
For
reasons
of
expediency,
the
Meeting
also
decided
to
include
text
permitting
the
Open­
ended
Working
Group,
at
its
twenty­
fourth
session,
to
identify
which
elements,
if
any,
could
be
used
on
an
interim
basis
pending
review
by
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties.
On
that
basis,
the
draft
decision
was
adopted
as
decision
Ex.
I/
5.
The
text
of
the
decision
is
contained
in
chapter
IV
below.

78.
The
President
announced
the
Parties
which
would
be
members
of
the
ad
hoc
working
group
established
by
the
decision.
Representatives
of
a
number
of
Article
5
Parties
pointed
to
a
lack
of
representation
of
certain
geographical
regions,
and
after
some
discussion
it
became
apparent
that
the
Meeting
desired
to
expand
the
membership
from
the
original
10
Article
5
Parties
to
12,
Argentina,
Brazil,
Chile,
China,
Costa
Rica,
Jordan,
Kenya,
Mauritius,
Morocco,
Nigeria,
the
Philippines
and
Sri
Lanka,
and
from
the
original
10
non­
Article
5
Parties
to
12,
Australia,
Canada,
Germany,
Italy,
Japan,
the
Netherlands,
Norway,
Poland,
Spain,
Switzerland,
the
United
Kingdom
of
Great
Britain
and
Northern
Ireland
and
the
United
States
of
America.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
13
79.
The
representative
of
Uganda
observed
that,
when
he
had
raised
an
objection
to
a
previous
decision,
he
had
been
told
that
it
had
been
adopted
and
could
not
be
further
amended,
yet
the
decision
under
discussion
appeared
to
have
been
amended
after
it
had
been
adopted.
He
did
not
insist,
but
expressed
the
wish
to
have
his
statement
recorded
in
the
report.

IV.
Adoption
of
decisions
80.
The
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
adopted
the
following
decisions
on
the
basis
of
the
draft
decisions
developed
by
the
contact
groups.

A.
Decisions
81.
The
First
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
decides:

Decision
Ex.
I/
1.
Further
adjustments
relating
to
the
controlled
substance
in
Annex
E
Recalling
that,
according
to
subparagraph
1
(
e)
of
decision
IX/
5,
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
should
have
decided
in
2003
on
further
specific
interim
reductions
on
methyl
bromide
for
the
period
beyond
2005
applicable
to
Parties
operating
under
paragraph
1
of
Article
5,

Taking
into
account
that
current
circumstances
prevent
several
Article
5
Parties
from
adopting
a
decision
in
that
regard,

Noting
that,
by
1
February
2006,
non­
Article
5
Parties
will
submit
national
management
strategies
which
will
send
a
clear
signal
on
the
phase­
out
of
critical
uses
of
methyl
bromide;

Considering
that
at
the
Seventeenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
the
Parties
will
decide
on
the
level
of
replenishment
of
the
Multilateral
Fund
for
the
Implementation
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
for
the
triennium
2006
 
2008,
which
should
take
into
account
the
requirement
to
provide
new
and
additional
adequate
financial
and
technical
assistance
to
enable
Article
5
Parties
to
comply
with
further
interim
reductions
on
methyl
bromide,

1.
To
keep
under
review
the
interim
reduction
schedule
as
elaborated
during
the
Fifteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties;

2.
To
consider,
preferably
by
2006,
further
specific
interim
reductions
in
methyl
bromide
applicable
to
Parties
operating
under
paragraph
1
of
Article
5;

Decision
Ex.
I/
2.
Accelerated
phase­
out
of
methyl
bromide
by
Article
5
Parties
Reaffirming
the
commitment
of
all
the
Parties
to
the
complete
phase­
out
of
methyl
bromide,

Recognizing
that
some
Article
5
Parties
have
made
commitments
to
an
accelerated
phase­
out
of
controlled
uses
of
methyl
bromide
and
have
concluded
agreements
with
the
Executive
Committee
of
the
Multilateral
Fund
towards
that
end,

Acknowledging
that
some
Article
5
Parties
which
are
implementing
early
phase­
out
of
methyl
bromide
on
a
voluntary
basis
and
under
such
agreements
are
facing
difficulties
in
fully
meeting
all
the
reduction
steps
in
accordance
with
the
timelines
specified
in
such
agreements
as
a
result
of
specific
circumstances
not
envisaged
at
the
time
of
their
adoption
and
ensuing
review,

1.
To
request
the
Executive
Committee
to
adopt
a
flexible
approach
when
determining
an
appropriate
course
of
action
to
deal
with
instances
where
a
country
has
not
met
a
reduction
step
specified
in
its
methyl
bromide
accelerated
phase­
out
agreement
as
a
result
of
the
specified
circumstance
not
envisaged;

2.
To
invite
the
Executive
Committee
to
consider,
upon
request
by
a
Party,
a
prolongation
of
the
final
reduction
step,
but
not
beyond
2015,
and
to
consider
also
the
timing
of
related
funding
in
the
Party's
existing
agreement
for
the
accelerated
phase­
out
of
methyl
bromide
in
cases
where
the
Party
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
14
concerned
has
demonstrated
that
there
are
difficulties
in
implementing
alternatives
originally
considered
to
be
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives;

3.
To
call
upon
the
Executive
Committee
to
adopt
criteria
for
the
prolongation
of
accelerated
phase­
out
agreements
when
so
requested
by
interested
Parties.
In
developing
such
criteria,
the
Executive
Committee
may
request
the
advice
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
and
consider
any
available
information
relating
to
the
phase­
out
project
of
the
Party
concerned,

Decision
Ex.
I/
3.
Critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide
for
2005
Reaffirming
the
obligation
to
phase
out
the
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
in
accordance
with
paragraph
5
of
Article
2H
by
1
January
2005,
subject
to
the
availability
of
an
exemption
for
uses
agreed
to
be
critical
by
the
Parties,

Recognizing
that
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
exist
for
most
uses
of
methyl
bromide,

Noting
that
those
alternatives
are
not
always
technically
and
economically
feasible
in
the
circumstances
of
the
nominations,

Noting
also
that
Article
5
Parties
have
made
substantial
progress
in
the
adoption
of
effective
alternatives,

Mindful
that
exemptions
must
fully
comply
with
decision
IX/
6,
and
are
intended
to
be
limited,
temporary
derogations
from
the
phase­
out
of
methyl
bromide,

Mindful
also
that
decision
IX/
6
permits
the
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
for
critical
uses
only
if
it
is
not
available
in
sufficient
quantity
and
quality
from
existing
stocks
of
banked
or
recycled
methyl
bromide,

Recognizing
the
desirability
of
a
transparent
presentation
of
data
on
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
to
assist
the
Parties
to
understand
better
the
critical­
use
volumes
and
to
gauge
progress
on
and
impediments
to
the
transition,

Recognizing
also
that
each
Party
should
aim
at
significantly
and
progressively
decreasing
its
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
for
critical
uses
with
the
intention
of
completely
phasing
out
methyl
bromide
as
soon
as
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
are
available,

Resolved
that
each
Party
should
revert
to
methyl
bromide
only
as
a
last
resort
and
in
the
situation
when
a
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternative
to
methyl
bromide
which
is
in
use
ceases
to
be
available
as
a
result
of
de­
registration
or
for
other
reasons,

Taking
into
account
the
recommendation
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
that
critical­
use
exemptions
should
not
be
authorized
in
cases
where
technically
and
economically
feasible
options
are
registered,
available
locally
and
used
commercially
by
similarly
situated
enterprises,

Noting
with
appreciation
the
work
done
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
its
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,

1.
For
the
agreed
critical
uses
set
forth
in
annex
II
A
to
the
report
of
the
First
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreeal
Protocol1
for
each
Party,
to
permit,
subject
to
the
conditions
set
forth
in
decision
Ex.
I/
4,
the
levels
of
production
and
consumption
set
forth
in
annex
II
B
to
the
present
report
which
are
necessary
to
satisfy
critical
uses,
with
the
understanding
that
additional
levels
and
categories
of
uses
may
be
approved
by
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
in
accordance
with
decision
IX/
6;

1
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
15
2.
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
difference
between
those
levels
by
using
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
from
stocks
that
the
Party
has
recognized
to
be
available;

3.
That
a
Party
using
stocks
under
paragraph
2
above
shall
prohibit
the
use
of
stocks
in
the
categories
set
forth
in
annex
II
A
to
the
report
of
the
First
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreeal
Protocol2
when
amounts
from
stocks
combined
with
allowable
production
and
consumption
for
critical
uses
exceed
the
total
level
for
that
Party
set
forth
in
annex
II
A
to
the
present
report;

4.
That
Parties
should
endeavour
to
allocate
the
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
recommended
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
as
listed
in
annex
II
A
to
the
report
of
the
First
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties3;

5.
That
each
Party
which
has
an
agreed
critical
use
should
ensure
that
the
criteria
in
paragraph
1
of
decision
IX/
6
are
applied
when
licensing,
permitting
or
authorizing
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
and
that
such
procedures
take
into
account
available
stocks.
Each
Party
is
requested
to
report
on
the
implementation
of
the
present
paragraph
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat;

6.
To
take
note
of
the
proposal
by
the
United
States
of
America
on
multi­
year
exemptions,
as
reflected
in
paragraph
7
of
the
paper
reproduced
in
annex
III
to
the
present
report,
and
to
consider,
at
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
the
elaboration
of
criteria
and
a
methodology
for
authorizing
multi­
year
exemptions;

7.
Bearing
in
mind
that
Parties
should
aim
at
significantly
and
progressively
reducing
their
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
for
critical­
use
exemptions,
that
a
Party
may
request
reconsideration
by
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
of
an
approved
critical­
use
exemption
in
the
case
of
exceptional
circumstances,
such
as
unforeseen
de­
registration
of
an
approved
methyl
bromide
alternative
when
no
other
feasible
alternatives
are
available,
or
where
pest
and
pathogens
build
resistance
to
the
alternative,
or
where
the
use­
reduction
measures
on
which
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
based
its
recommendation
as
to
the
level
necessary
to
satisfy
critical
uses
are
demonstrated
not
to
be
feasible
in
the
specific
circumstances
of
that
Party;

Decision
Ex.
I/
4.
Conditions
for
granting
and
reporting
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide
Mindful
of
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
report4
by
the
chair
of
the
informal
consultation
on
methyl
bromide
held
in
Buenos
Aires
on
4
and
5
March
2004,
namely,
fairness,
certainty
and
confidence,
practicality
and
flexibility,
and
transparency,

Recognizing
that
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
exist
for
most
uses
of
methyl
bromide,

Noting
that
those
alternatives
are
not
always
technically
and
economically
feasible
in
the
circumstances
of
nominations,

Noting
that
Article
5
and
non­
Article
5
Parties
have
made
substantial
progress
in
the
adoption
of
effective
alternatives,

Mindful
that
exemptions
must
comply
fully
with
decision
IX/
6
and
are
intended
to
be
limited,
temporary
derogations
from
the
phase­
out
of
methyl
bromide,

Recognizing
the
desirability
of
a
transparent
presentation
of
data
on
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
to
assist
the
Parties
to
understand
better
the
critical­
use
volumes
and
to
gauge
progress
on
and
impediments
to
the
transition
from
methyl
bromide,

Resolved
that
each
Party
should
aim
at
significantly
and
progressively
decreasing
its
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
for
critical
uses
with
the
intention
of
completely
phasing
out
methyl
bromide
as
soon
as
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
are
available,

2
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3.

3
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3.

4
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
INF/
1,
para.
11.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
16
Recognizing
that
Parties
should
revert
to
methyl
bromide
only
as
a
last
resort,
in
the
event
that
a
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternative
to
methyl
bromide
which
is
in
use
ceases
to
be
available
as
a
result
of
de­
registration
or
for
other
reasons,

1.
That
each
Party
which
has
an
agreed
critical
use
under
the
present
decision
should
submit
available
information
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
before
1
February
2005
on
the
alternatives
available,
listed
according
to
their
pre­
harvest
or
post­
harvest
uses
and
the
possible
date
of
registration,
if
required,
for
each
alternative;
and
on
the
alternatives
which
the
Parties
can
disclose
to
be
under
development,
listed
according
to
their
pre­
harvest
or
post­
harvest
uses
and
the
likely
date
of
registration,
if
required
and
known,
for
those
alternatives,
and
that
the
Ozone
Secretariat
shall
be
requested
to
provide
a
template
for
that
information
and
to
post
the
said
information
in
a
database
entitled
"
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives"
on
its
web
site;

2.
That
each
Party
which
submits
a
nomination
for
the
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
for
years
after
2005
should
also
submit
information
listed
in
paragraph
1
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
to
include
in
its
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives
database
and
that
any
other
Party
which
no
longer
consumes
methyl
bromide
should
also
submit
information
on
alternatives
to
the
Secretariat
for
inclusion
in
that
database;

3.
To
request
each
Party
which
makes
a
critical­
use
nomination
after
2005
to
submit
a
national
management
strategy
for
phase­
out
of
critical
uses
of
methyl
bromide
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
before
1
February
2006.
The
management
strategy
should
aim,
among
other
things:

(
a)
To
avoid
any
increase
in
methyl
bromide
consumption
except
for
unforeseen
circumstances;

(
b)
To
encourage
the
use
of
alternatives
through
the
use
of
expedited
procedures,
where
possible,
to
develop,
register
and
deploy
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives;

(
c)
To
provide
information,
for
each
current
pre­
harvest
and
post­
harvest
use
for
which
a
nomination
is
planned,
on
the
potential
market
penetration
of
newly
deployed
alternatives
and
alternatives
which
may
be
used
in
the
near
future,
to
bring
forward
the
time
when
it
is
estimated
that
methyl
bromide
consumption
for
such
uses
can
be
reduced
and/
or
ultimately
eliminated;

(
d)
To
promote
the
implementation
of
measures
which
ensure
that
any
emissions
of
methyl
bromide
are
minimized;

(
e)
To
show
how
the
management
strategy
will
be
implemented
to
promote
the
phase­
out
of
uses
of
methyl
bromide
as
soon
as
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
are
available,
in
particular
describing
the
steps
which
the
Party
is
taking
in
regard
to
subparagraph
(
b)
(
iii)
of
paragraph
1
of
decision
IX/
6
in
respect
of
research
programmes
in
non­
Article
5
Parties
and
the
adoption
of
alternatives
by
Article
5
Parties;

4.
To
request
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
take
into
account
information
submitted
pursuant
to
paragraphs
1
and
3
of
the
present
decision
when
it
considers
permitting
a
Party
to
produce
or
consume
methyl
bromide
for
critical
uses
after
2006;

5.
To
request
a
Party
that
has
submitted
a
request
for
a
critical
use
exemption
to
consider
and
implement,
if
feasible,
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
recommendations
on
actions
which
a
Party
may
take
to
reduce
critical
uses
of
methyl
bromide;

6.
To
request
any
Party
submitting
a
critical­
use
nomination
after
2004
to
describe
in
its
nomination
the
methodology
used
to
determine
economic
feasibility
in
the
event
that
economic
feasibility
is
used
as
a
criterion
to
justify
the
requirement
for
the
critical
use
of
methyl
bromide,
using
as
a
guide
the
economic
criteria
contained
in
section
4
of
annex
I
to
the
present
report;

7.
To
request
each
Party
from
1
January
2005
to
provide
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
a
summary
of
each
crop
or
post­
harvest
nomination
containing
the
following
information:

(
a)
Name
of
the
nominating
Party;

(
b)
Descriptive
title
of
the
nomination;

(
c)
Crop
name
(
open
field
or
protected)
or
post­
harvest
use;
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
17
(
d)
Quantity
of
methyl
bromide
requested
in
each
year;

(
e)
Reason
or
reasons
why
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
are
not
technically
and
economically
feasible;

8.
To
request
the
Ozone
Secretariat
to
post
the
information
submitted
pursuant
to
paragraph
7
above,
categorized
according
to
the
year
in
which
it
was
received,
on
its
web
site
within
10
days
of
receiving
the
nomination;

9.
To
request
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel:

(
a)
To
identify
options
which
Parties
may
consider
for
preventing
potential
harmful
trade
of
methyl
bromide
stocks
to
Article
5
Parties
as
consumption
is
reduced
in
non­
Article
5
Parties
and
to
publish
its
evaluation
in
2005
to
enable
the
Seventeenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
decide
if
suitable
mitigating
steps
are
necessary;

(
b)
To
identify
factors
which
Article
5
Parties
may
wish
to
take
into
account
in
evaluating
whether
they
should
either
undertake
new
accelerated
phase­
out
commitments
through
the
Multilateral
Fund
for
the
Implementation
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
or
seek
changes
to
already
agreed
accelerated
phase­
outs
of
methyl
bromide
under
the
Multilateral
Fund;

(
c)
To
assess
economic
infeasibility,
based
on
the
methodology
submitted
by
the
nominating
Party
under
paragraph
6
above,
in
making
its
recommendations
on
each
critical­
use
nomination.
The
report
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
should
be
made
with
a
view
to
encouraging
nominating
Parties
to
adopt
a
common
approach
in
assessing
the
economic
feasibility
of
alternatives;

(
d)
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
next
few
years,
based
on
a
review
of
the
management
strategies
submitted
by
Parties
pursuant
to
paragraph
3
of
the
present
decision;

(
e)
To
review
critical­
use
nominations
on
an
annual
basis
and
apply
the
criteria
set
forth
in
decision
IX/
6
and
of
other
relevant
criteria
agreed
by
the
Parties;

(
f)
To
recommend
an
accounting
framework
for
adoption
by
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
which
can
be
used
for
reporting
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
produced,
imported
and
exported
by
Parties
under
the
terms
of
critical­
use
exemptions,
and
after
the
end
of
2005
to
request
each
Party
which
has
been
granted
a
critical­
use
exemption
to
submit
information
together
with
its
nomination
using
the
agreed
format;

(
g)
To
provide,
in
consultation
with
interested
Parties,
a
format
for
a
critical­
use
exemption
report,
based
on
the
content
of
annex
I
to
the
present
report,
for
adoption
by
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
and
to
request
each
Party
which
reapplies
for
a
methyl
bromide
critical­
use
exemption
after
the
end
of
2005
to
submit
a
critical­
use
exemption
report
in
the
agreed
format;

(
h)
To
assess,
annually
where
appropriate,
any
critical­
use
nomination
made
after
the
end
of
2006
in
the
light
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives
database
information
submitted
pursuant
to
paragraph
1
of
the
present
decision,
and
to
compare,
annually
where
appropriate,
the
quantity,
in
the
nomination,
of
methyl
bromide
requested
and
recommended
for
each
pre­
harvest
and
post­
harvest
use
with
the
management
strategy
submitted
by
the
Party
pursuant
to
paragraph
3
of
the
present
decision;

(
i)
To
report
annually
on
the
status
of
re­
registration
and
review
of
methyl
bromide
uses
for
the
applications
reflected
in
the
critical­
use
exemptions,
including
any
information
on
health
effects
and
environmental
acceptability;

(
j)
To
report
annually
on
the
status
of
registration
of
alternatives
and
substitutes
for
methyl
bromide,
with
particular
emphasis
on
possible
regulatory
actions
that
will
increase
or
decrease
dependence
on
methyl
bromide;

(
k)
To
modify
the
handbook
on
critical­
use
nominations
for
methyl
bromide
to
take
the
present
decision
and
other
relevant
information
into
account,
for
submission
to
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
18
Decision
Ex.
I/
5.
Review
of
the
working
procedures
and
terms
of
reference
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
Acknowledging
with
appreciation
the
important
and
valuable
work
undertaken
so
far
by
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,

Reaffirming
the
need
for
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
to
sustain
an
optimum
level
of
expertise
to
be
able
to
address
diverse
types
of
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
and
the
desirability
of
having
a
reasonable
term
of
membership
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
to
ensure
continuity;

Noting
decision
XIII/
11,
which
requests
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
to
engage
suitably
qualified
agricultural
economists
to
assist
in
reviewing
nominations,

Recognizing
the
desirability
of
ensuring
that
some
members
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
have
knowledge
of
alternatives
that
are
used
in
commercial
practice,
and
practical
experience
in
technology
transfer
and
deployment,

Recognizing
the
need
to
strengthen
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
and
to
enhance
the
transparency
and
efficiency
of
the
Committee's
process
relating
to
the
evaluation
of
nominations
for
critical­
use
exemptions,

Noting
the
terms
of
reference
for
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
its
technical
options
committees
adopted
at
the
Eighth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,

Mindful
that
those
terms
of
reference
state
that
the
overall
goal
is
to
achieve
a
representation
of
about
50
per
cent
for
Article
5
Parties
and
noting
that
current
Article
5
representation
within
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
is
only
about
30
per
cent,

Recalling
decision
XV/
54
on
categories
of
assessment
to
be
used
by
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
when
assessing
critical
uses
of
methyl
bromide,

1.
To
establish
a
process
to
review
the
working
procedures
and
terms
of
reference
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
as
they
relate
to
the
evaluation
of
nominations
for
critical
use
exemptions;

2.
That
such
a
review
shall
consider,
in
particular:

(
a)
The
need
to
enhance
the
transparency
and
efficiency
of
the
analysis
and
reporting
by
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
on
critical­
use
nominations,
including
the
communication
between
the
nominating
Party
and
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee;

(
b)
The
timing
and
structure
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
reports
on
critical­
use
nominations;

(
c)
The
duration
and
rotation
of
membership,
taking
into
account
the
need
to
provide
for
a
reasonable
turnover
of
members
while
also
ensuring
continuity;

(
d)
The
conflict­
of­
interest
documents
which
must
be
completed
by
members
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee;

(
e)
The
expertise
required
in
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
taking
into
account
among
other
things
that
the
composition
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
should
ensure
that
some
members
have
practical
and
first­
hand
experience
which
should
relate,
in
particular,
to
replacing
methyl
bromide
with
alternatives,
and
that
within
that
composition
reflected
the
appropriate
skills
and
expertise
required
to
perform
the
work
of
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
including
expertise
in
the
field
of
agricultural
economy,
technology
transfer
and
regulatory
processes
of
registration;

(
f)
The
criteria
and
procedure
for
selecting
the
experts,
including
ensuring
a
balance
between
experts
from
Article
5
and
non­
Article
5
Parties,
pursuant
to
the
qualification
requirements
as
set
forth
in
subparagraph
(
e)
above;

(
g)
Further
guidance
on
the
application
of
the
criteria
set
forth
in
decision
IX/
6;

(
h)
The
modalities
for
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
to
submit
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
19
annual
work
plans
to
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties;

(
i)
The
instances
where
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
should
seek
the
guidance
of
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
in
conducting
its
work;

(
j)
Modalities
for
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
to
provide
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
with
budget
proposals
for
the
conduct
of
the
Committee's
work
through
the
Secretariat;

3.
To
establish
to
that
end
an
ad
hoc
working
group
which
shall
meet
for
three
days
immediately
prior
to
the
twenty­
fourth
meeting
of
the
Open­
ended
Working
Group
and
shall
comprise
12
representatives
of
Article
5
Parties
and
12
representatives
of
non­
Article
5
Parties;

4.
To
invite
the
co­
chairs
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
to
participate
in
the
meeting
of
the
ad
hoc
working
group;

5.
That
the
ad
hoc
working
group
should
base
its
discussions
on
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee­
related
elements
and
issues
set
forth
in
paragraph
2
above
and
shall
report
its
findings
and
recommendations
to
the
Open­
ended
Working
Group
at
its
twenty­
fourth
session;

6.
To
request
the
Open­
ended
Working
Group
at
its
twenty­
fourth
session
to
formulate
recommendations
for
the
consideration
and
approval
of
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
and
to
identify
which
elements,
if
any,
could
be
used
on
an
interim
basis
pending
approval
by
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties;

7.
That
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
should
continue
to
assess
the
nominations
as
"
recommended",
"
not
recommended"
or
"
unable
to
assess".

8.
That
the
reports
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
its
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
to
be
published
following
those
bodies'
initial
assessment
of
nominations
submitted
in
2004
and
following
the
subsequent
assessment
of
any
additional
information
submitted
by
nominating
Parties,
should
include:

(
a)
If
the
Panel
and
Committee
do
not
recommend
any
part
of
a
nomination,
a
clear
description
of
the
nominating
Party's
request
for
an
exemption
and
of
the
reasons
why
the
Panel
and
Committee
did
not
accept
it,
including
references
to
the
relevant
studies,
wherever
available,
used
as
the
basis
for
such
a
decision;

(
b)
If
the
Panel
and
Committee
require
additional
information,
a
clear
description
of
the
information
required.

B.
Comments
made
at
the
time
of
adoption
of
decisions
82.
The
representative
of
the
United
States
of
America,
speaking
also
on
behalf
of
Australia,
Canada,
the
Dominican
Republic,
Guatemala,
Kenya,
Malaysia,
Qatar
and
Uganda,
made
the
statement
summarized
below.

83.
The
Parties
listed
wished
to
have
reflected
in
the
report
their
understanding
that
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
the
decisions
of
the
Parties
must
provide
the
mandate
for
the
technical
committees
set
up
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
to
assist
in
the
phase­
out
of
consumption
and
production
of
ozone­
depleting
substances
under
the
Protocol.
As
such,
they
expected
that,
in
performing
their
functions,
technical
committees,
including
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
its
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
would
adhere
to
the
mandate
which
they
had
from
the
Parties.

84.
The
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
its
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
had
identified
the
need
for
guidance
from
the
Parties
as
to
how
to
conduct
the
critical­
use
exemption
process
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
process
was
improved
to
meet
the
Parties'
expectations.
The
United
States
of
America
and
the
other
countries
mentioned
acknowledged
and
supported
the
need
for
such
guidance
and
improvements
and
noted
that
the
Parties
had
also
heeded
the
request
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
its
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
through
their
adoption
of
decision
Ex.
I/
5,
which
provided
the
means
for
developing
such
guidance.

85.
They
also
noted
that
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
its
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
had
indicated,
in
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
February
2004
report,
the
intention
to
change
the
standard
by
which
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
reviewed
nominations.
While
Australia,
Canada,
the
Dominican
Republic,
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
20
Guatemala,
Kenya,
Malaysia,
Qatar,
Uganda
and
the
United
States
of
America
strongly
desired
the
improvement
of
the
process
as
soon
as
possible,
the
authority
for
changing
the
standards
associated
with
the
assessment
of
nominations
lay
with
the
Parties.

86.
Accordingly,
as
the
guidance
to
be
prepared
by
the
Parties
under
decision
Ex.
I/
5
would
not
be
finalized
before
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties,
they
believed
that
it
was
necessary
for
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
and
its
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
to
ensure
that
they
did
not
seek
to
apply
any
standards
not
yet
endorsed
by
the
Parties.

87.
The
representative
of
Australia
expressed
her
delegation's
recognition
of
the
work
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
in
assisting
the
Meeting
in
reaching
the
first
milestone
in
the
critical­
use
process.
Australia
was
very
aware
that,
since
the
commencement
of
that
process,
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee's
work
had
been
subjected
to
considerable
scrutiny
by
the
Parties.
That
scrutiny
was
a
natural
consequence
of
the
fact
that
the
process
was
new
both
for
the
Committee
and
for
the
Parties.
Australia
hoped
that
the
Parties
would
share
its
appreciation
of
the
fact
that
Committee
members
gave
of
their
valuable
time
and
expertise
without
financial
remuneration.
She
expressed
her
delegation's
gratitude
for
the
commitment
of
the
members
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
and
looked
forward
to
working
with
the
Committee
and
the
Parties
to
provide
the
Committee
with
the
input
and
guidance
necessary
to
ensure
the
continuous
improvement
of
the
critical­
use
process
for
the
benefit
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
the
ozone
layer.

V.
Adoption
of
the
report
of
the
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
88.
The
present
report
was
adopted
on
Friday,
26
March
2004,
on
the
basis
of
the
draft
report
submitted
to
the
Meeting.

VI.
Closure
of
the
Meeting
89.
After
the
customary
exchange
of
courtesies,
the
Meeting
rose
at
11
p.
m.
on
Friday,
26
March
2004.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
21
Annex
I
Requirements
for
annual
reporting
of
critical­
use
exemptions
for
methyl
bromide
A.
Introduction
The
format
proposed
here
would
apply
to
annual
reporting
by
Parties
that
have
obtained
a
criticaluse
exemption
for
a
particular
application.
It
is
not
intended
to
replace
the
format
for
requesting
a
critical­
use
exemption
for
a
particular
application
for
the
first
time.

It
should
be
noted
that,
in
addition
to
a
reporting
format
for
holders
of
multiple­
year
exemptions,
Australia
proposes
that
this
format
would
also
be
used
by
holders
of
single­
year
exemptions
to
reapply
for
a
subsequent
year's
exemption
(
for
example,
nominees
approved
for
single­
year
exemptions
for
2005
seeking
further
exemptions
for
2006).

In
addition,
Australia
notes
that
it
may
be
useful
for
the
following
format
to
be
prefaced
by
cover
pages
similar
to
those
detailed
in
the
2003
critical
use
handbook,
which
summarize
the
critical­
use
nomination
and
provide
the
contact
details
of
the
nominating
Party.

From
2005
onwards,
Parties'
experience
in
the
submission
and
assessment
of
reporting
on
critical­
use
exemptions
may
reveal
improvements
that
could
usefully
be
made
to
the
reporting
parameters
outlined
in
the
present
document.
Acknowledging
this
potential,
and
to
ensure
continuous
improvement
of
the
exemption
reporting
process,
it
is
noted
that
Parties
will
have
the
opportunity
to
review
the
annual
reporting
parameters
at
a
future
date
to
ensure
that
they
continue:

(
a)
To
meet
their
expectations
regarding
the
provision
of
transparent
and
adequate
data
on
exemption
holders'
progress
in
achieving
transition;

(
b)
To
provide
a
streamlined
format
that
does
not
compromise
the
level
of
data
required
for
scrutiny
by
the
Parties,
but
also
does
not
place
an
unnecessarily
onerous
burden
on
nominating
Parties.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
22
Table
1:
Report
on
transition
efforts
and
activities
Transition
efforts
and
activities
A.
Description
and
implementation
status
B.
Outcomes
to
date
C.
Impact
on
criticaluse
nomination/
required
quantities
D.
Actions
to
address
any
delays/
obstacles
E.
Any
re­
changes
to
trials/
other
efforts
1.
Trials
of
alternatives
2.
Technology
transfer,

scale­
up,
regulatory
approval
3.
Commercial
scaleup
deployment,
market
penetration
4.
Any
other
broader
transition
activities
23
B.
Reporting
requirements
1.
Implementation
of
the
Parties'
mandate
on
continued
efforts
to
find
alternatives
Column
A
requires
a
description
of
the
implementation
of
any
trials,
technology
transfer
activities
and/
or
other
transition
activities
that
were
identified
in
the
earlier
nomination,
including
advice
on
whether
the
activity
is
complete
or
still
underway.

Column
B
requires
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
transition
activities
(
e.
g.,
trials
of
alternatives
 
yield
results
achieved
with
the
alternative
in
comparison
to
those
achieved
through
methyl
bromide
treatment;
deployment
 
percentage
of
users
represented
in
a
nomination
covered
by
deployment
activities
and
now
able
to
transition
to
alternatives).
In
the
case
of
trials
of
alternatives,
reporting
would
include
attaching
copies
of
formal
scientific
trial
reports.
Where
formal
trial
reports
are
not
available
(
for
example,
where
an
exemption
holder's
transition
efforts
focus
on
grower
trials),
the
exemption
holder
could
include
a
description
of
all
relevant
parameters
of
the
trials
that
are
available.
These
could
include
data,
as
specified
in
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
Handbook
on
Critical
Use
Nominations
for
Methyl
Bromide,
such
as
soil
and
climate
types
in
which
the
trials
were
conducted,
plant­
back
times
observed,
the
rate
of
methyl
bromide
andalternatives
application
(
kg/
hectare
or
g/
m2),
the
proportionate
mix
of
methyl
bromide
and
chloropicrin,
etc.

Column
C
requires
a
summary
of
the
implication
of
the
trial
andactivity
results
and
outcomes,
such
as
what
impact
they
would
have
on
the
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
required
for
the
critical­
use
nomination.
For
example,
positive
results
from
technology
transfer
or
deployment
activities
could
lead
to
the
nominating
Party
identifying
a
reduction
in
the
quantity
required
for
the
subsequent
year
of
the
exemption.

Column
D:
where
any
obstacles
or
delays
beyond
the
control
of
the
exemption
holder
arose
to
hinder
their
transition
activities,
this
column
requires
a
description
of
those
obstacles
or
delays
and
a
detailed
plan,
including
time­
specific
milestones,
for
actions
to
address
such
problems
and
maintain
the
transition
momentum.

Column
E:
where
trials,
technology
transfer
or
other
transition
activities
have
been
undertaken
but
have
yielded
negative
results
(
e.
g.,
trials
demonstrated
technical
problems
with
an
alternative,
deployment
activities
revealed
unanticipated
economic
infeasibility,
etc),
column
E
requires
a
description
of
the
new
or
alternative
transition
activities
to
be
undertaken
by
the
exemption
holder
to
overcome
such
obstacles
to
transition.

Row
4:
"
Any
other
broader
transition
activities"
provides
a
nominating
Party
with
the
opportunity
to
report,
where
applicable,
on
any
additional
activities
which
it
may
have
undertaken
to
encourage
a
transition,
but
need
not
be
restricted
to
the
circumstances
and
activities
of
the
individual
nomination.
Without
prescribing
specific
activities
that
a
nominating
Party
should
address,
and
noting
that
individual
Parties
are
best
placed
to
identify
the
most
appropriate
approach
to
achieve
a
swift
transition
in
their
own
circumstances,
such
activities
could
include
market
incentives,
financial
support
to
exemption
nominees
and
exemption
holders,
labelling,
product
prohibitions,
public
awareness
and
information
campaigns,
etc.

Notes:
For
an
exemption
holder
or
nominee
to
qualify
for
an
exemption,
a
commitment
must
be
demonstrated
to
finding
technically
and
economically
viable
alternatives
and
achieving
a
transition
to
the
use
of
alternatives.
In
particular,
decision
IX/
6
requires
the
following
of
an
exemption
nominee:

"
It
is
demonstrated
that
an
appropriate
effort
is
being
made
to
evaluate,
commercialize
and
secure
national
regulatory
approval
of
alternatives
and
substitutes...
Non­
Article
5
Parties
must
demonstrate
that
research
programmes
are
in
place
to
develop
and
deploy
alternatives
and
substitutes.
Article
5
Parties
must
demonstrate
that
feasible
alternatives
shall
be
adopted
as
soon
as
they
are
confirmed
as
suitable
to
the
Party's
specific
conditions ".

Section
1
provides
the
means
by
which
exemption
holders
and
nominees
can
report
on
their
current
progress
in
implementing
that
mandate.
The
nature
of
the
information
provided
would
vary
according
to
the
specific
actions
that
had
been
outlined
in
each
original
nomination,
but
for
ease
of
review
the
information
should
be
structured
as
presented
in
table
1
above.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
24
2.
Registration
of
an
alternative
Where
a
nomination
identified
that
an
alternative
was
not
yet
registered
at
the
time
of
the
original
nomination's
submission,
but
it
was
anticipated
that
one
would
be
subsequently
registered,
the
nominating
Party
should
report
on
the
progress
of
the
alternative
through
the
registration
process.
This
report
should
include
any
efforts
by
the
Party
to
"
fast
track"
or
otherwise
assist
the
registration
of
the
alternative.

Where
significant
delays
or
obstacles
have
been
encountered
to
the
anticipated
registration
of
an
alternative,
the
exemption
holder
should
identify
the
scope
for
any
new/
alternative
efforts
that
could
be
undertaken
to
maintain
the
momentum
of
transition
efforts,
and
identify
a
time­
frame
for
undertaking
such
efforts.

Where
an
alternative
was
de­
registered
subsequent
to
submission
of
the
original
nomination,
the
nominating
Party
would
report
the
de­
registration,
including
reasons
for
it.
The
nominating
Party
would
also
report
on
the
de­
registration's
impact
(
if
any)
on
the
exemption
holder's
transition
plan
and
on
the
proposed
new
or
alternative
efforts
that
will
be
undertaken
by
the
exemption
holder
to
maintain
the
momentum
of
transition
efforts.

Notes:
It
is
understood
that
progress
in
registration
of
a
product
will
often
be
beyond
the
control
of
an
individual
exemption
holder
as
the
registration
process
must
be
undertaken
by
the
manufacturer
or
supplier
of
the
product.
The
speed
with
which
registration
applications
are
processed
also
falls
outside
the
exemption
holder's
control,
resting
with
the
nominating
Party.
Consequently,
this
section
requires
the
nominating
Party
to
report
on
any
efforts
it
has
taken
to
assist
the
registration
process,
noting
that
the
scope
for
expediting
registration
will
vary
from
Party
to
Party.

In
recognition
of
the
fact
that
it
would
be
unreasonable
to
revise
exemption
holders'
nomination
because
of
registration
delays
beyond
their
control,
this
section
also
requires
a
report
on
the
actions
that
are
being
taken
to
continue
transition
despite
registration
delays.

3.
Implementation
of
recommendations
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
and
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
In
developing
recommendations
on
exemption
nominations
submitted
in
2003,
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
and
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
in
many
cases
recommended
that
nominees
should
explore
and,
more
appropriate,
implement:

(
a)
Options
for
reducing
the
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
required;
or
(
b)
The
use
of
particular
alternatives
not
originally
identified
by
the
exemption
holder
as
part
of
its
transitional
plan,
but
considered
key
alternatives
by
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
and
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel.

Where
the
approval
granted
by
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties'
for
exemptions
included
conditions
incorporating
those
recommendations,
the
exemption
 
holder
should
report
on
its
progress
in
exploring
or
implementing
them
as
part
of
its
annual
reporting
obligations.

Where
a
condition
required
the
testing
of
an
alternative
or
adoption
of
an
emission
minimization
measure,
reporting
should
be
structured
in
the
same
format
as
table
1
(
report
on
transition
efforts
and
activities).

Where
a
condition
related
to
an
assessment
of
the
economic
viability
of
an
alternative
or
measure
to
minimize
use
or
emissions,
the
reporting
should
require
to
address
the
relevant
economic
data
requirements
identified
in
section
4
below.

4.
Economic
feasibility
Where
a
nomination
has
been
approved
on
the
basis
of
the
economic
infeasibility
of
an
alternative,
the
exemption
holder
should
report
any
significant
changes
to
the
underlying
economics.
This
could
include
any
changes
to:

(
a)
The
purchase
cost
per
kilogram
of
methyl
bromide
and
of
the
alternative;

(
b)
Gross
and
net
revenue
with
and
without
methyl
bromide,
and
with
the
next
best
alternative;
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
25
(
c)
Percentage
change
in
gross
revenues
if
alternatives
are
used;

(
d)
Absolute
losses
per
hectare/
cubic
metre
if
alternatives
are
used;

(
e)
Losses
per
kilogram
of
methyl
bromide
requested
if
alternatives
are
used;

(
f)
Losses
as
a
percentage
of
net
cash
revenue
if
alternatives
are
used;

(
g)
Percentage
change
in
profit
margin
if
alternatives
are
used.

Notes:
Where
an
exemption
has
been
approved
on
the
basis
of
the
economic
infeasibility
of
an
alternative,
the
exemption
holder
must
have
clearly
described
the
nature
of
the
economic
infeasibility
in
its
original
nomination.

The
economics
of
methyl
bromide
and
of
alternatives
can
be
subject
to
changes
over
time,
and
it
is
possible
that
those
changes
could
have
an
impact
on
the
exemption
holder's
claim
that
an
alternative
is
not
economically
viable
and
on
its
continuing
eligibility
for
an
exemption.

Given
that
criteria
for
assessing
the
economic
feasibility
of
alternatives
have
not
yet
been
agreed
by
the
Parties,
at
the
current
time
the
seven
data
points
identified
above
represent
suggested
guidance
only.
As
criteria
are
developed
and
approved
by
the
Parties
for
inclusion
in
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel/
MBTOC
Handbook,
the
data
to
be
provided
in
annual
reporting
would
reflect
those
criteria
and
any
accompanying
new
data
requirements.

5.
Reduction
in
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
required
Exemption
holders
should
indicate
whether
the
number
of
hectares
or
cubic
metres
identified
in
their
earlier
nominations
has
changed.
Where
the
number
has
been
reduced,
the
exemption
holder
should
quantify
any
resultant
change
in
the
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
required.

Notes:
The
Critical
Use
Nomination
Handbook
requests
pre­
planting
Parties
making
nominations
to
provide
information
on
the
number
of
hectares
or
cubic
metres
to
be
treated
with
methyl
bromide.

In
some
cases,
it
is
possible
that
the
number
of
hectares
or
cubic
metres
to
be
treated
could
vary
over
time.
As
such
variations
can
also
change
the
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
required
for
the
exemption,
this
section
provides
the
means
to
monitor
such
variations.

Exemption
quantity
details
Quantity
requested
in
original
nomination:
__________________

Quantity
recommended
by
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel:
__________________

Quantity
approved
by
Parties:
__________________

Quantity
required
for
[
year]:
__________________
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
26
Annex
II
A.
Agreed
critical­
use
categories
Country
Categories
of
permitted
critical
uses
(
metric
tonnes)

Australia
Cut
flowers
 
field
(
18.375);
Cut
flowers
 
protected
(
10.425);
Cut
flowers,
bulbs
 
protected
(
7);
Rice
(
consumer
packs)
(
6.15);
Strawberry
fruit
 
field
(
67);
Strawberry
runners
(
35.75);

Belgium
Asparagus
(
planting
material)
(
0.63);
Chicory
(
0.18);
Cucurbits
(
0.61);
Cut
flowers
(
excluding
roses
and
chrysanthemum)
(
4);
Cut
flowers
(
chrysanthemum)
(
1.12);
Leeks
and
onions
 
planting
stock
(
0.66);
Lettuce
and
endive
 
protected
(
25.19);
Nursery
(
0.9);
Orchard
 
pome
fruit
and
berries
 
replant
(
1.35);
Pepper,
eggplant
 
protected
(
3);
Strawberry
runners
(
3.4);
Tomatoes
 
protected
(
5.7);
Tree
nursery
(
0.23)

Canada
Pasta
and
flour
mills
(
47);
Strawberry
runners
(
7.952)

France
Carrots
(
8);
Chestnuts
(
2);
Cut
flowers,
bulbs
 
protected
and
open
field
(
60);
Eggplant,
pepper,
tomato
 
protected
and
field
(
125);
Forest
nurseries
(
10);
Mills
and
processors
(
40);
Orchard
and
raspberry
 
replant
(
25);
Orchard
and
raspberry
nurseries
(
5);
Rice
(
consumer
packs)
(
2);
Strawberry
runners
(
40);
Strawberry
fruit
 
protected
and
open
field
(
90);

Greece
Cucurbits
 
protected
(
30);
Tomato
 
protected
(
156);

Italy
Cut
flowers,
bulbs
 
protected
(
250);
Eggplant
 
protected
(
194);
Melon
 
protected
(
131);
Pepper
 
protected
(
160);
Strawberry
fruit
 
protected
(
407);
Strawberry
runners
(
120);
Tomato
 
protected
(
871);

Japan
Chestnuts
(
4.6);
Cucumber
(
39.4);
Melon
(
94.5);
Peppers
(
74.1);
Watermelon
(
71.4)

Portugal
Cut
flowers
 
protected
and
open
field
(
50);

Spain
Cut
flowers
(
Andalusia)
 
protected
(
53);
Cut
flowers
(
Catalonia)
 
carnation,
protected
and
open
field
(
20);
Peppers
 
protected
(
200);
Strawberry
fruit
 
protected
(
556);
Strawberry
runners
(
230)

United
Kingdom
Cheese
stores
(
traditional)
(
1.640);
Food
storage
(
dry
goods)
 
structure
(
1.1);
Mills
and
processors
(
47.13);
Miscellaneous
dry
nuts,
fruit,
beans,
cereals,
seeds
(
2.4);
Ornamental
tree
nurseries
(
6);
Spices
(
structural/
equipment)
(
1.728);
Stored
spices
(
0.03);
Strawberries
and
raspberries
 
fruit
(
68);
Tobacco
(
product/
machinery)
(
0.050)

United
States
of
America
Chrysanthemum
cuttings
 
rose
plants
(
nursery)
(
29.412);
Cucurbits
 
field
(
1187.8);
Dried
fruit,
beans
and
nuts
(
86.753);
Eggplant
 
field
(
73.56);
Forest
nursery
seedlings
(
192.515);
Fruit
tree
nurseries
(
45.8);
Ginger
production
 
field
(
9.2);
Mills
and
processors
(
483);
Orchard
replant
(
706.176);
Peppers
 
field
(
1085.3);
Smokehouse
ham
 
(
building
and
product)
(
0.907);
Strawberry
fruit
 
field
(
1833.846);
Strawberry
runners
(
54.988);
Sweet
potato
 
field
(
80.83);
Tomato
 
field
(
2865.3);
Turfgrass
(
206.827)

B.
Permitted
levels
of
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
necessary
to
satisfy
critical
uses
in
2005
Country
(
metric
tonnes
of
methyl
bromide)

Australia
145
Belgium*
47
Canada
55
France*
407
Greece*
186
Italy*
2,133
Japan
284
Portugal*
50
Spain*
1,059
United
Kingdom*
128
United
States
of
America
7,659
*
The
production
and
consumption
of
the
European
Community
shall
not
exceed
3,910
metric
tonnes
for
the
purposes
of
the
agreed
critical
uses,
and
100
metric
tonnes
of
stocks.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
27
Annex
III
Draft
decision
submitted
by
the
United
States
of
America
to
the
First
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
Permitted
levels
of
production
and
consumption
to
meet
agreed
critical­
use
exemptions
The
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties
decides:

Reaffirming
the
obligation
to
phase
out
the
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
in
accordance
with
paragraph
5
of
Article
2H
by
1
January
2005
subject
to
the
availability
of
an
exemption
for
uses
agreed
to
be
critical
by
the
Parties,

Recalling
that
Article
2H
further
contemplates
the
Parties
taking
two
separate
decisions
with
respect
to
critical
uses
permitting
levels
of
production
and
consumption
necessary
to
meet
agreed
critical
uses,
one
on
the
level
and
categories
of
critical
uses
and
then
a
separate
decision
on
the
level
of
production
or
consumption
necessary
to
satisfy
those
uses,

Noting
with
appreciation
the
efforts
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
and
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
in
reporting
on
and
guiding
the
discussions
of
Parties
on
the
issue
of
critical
use
exemptions
in
accordance
with
the
mandate
under
decision
IX/
6,

1.
To
agree
on
critical
use
exemptions
for
2005,
2006,
and
2007
as
set
out
in
appendix
I
of
the
present
decision
for
the
categories
of
permitted
critical
uses
set
forth
in
appendix
II;

2.
To
permit
a
level
of
production
or
consumption
in
2005,
2006,
and
2007
as
set
forth
in
appendix
III
of
the
present
decision;

3.
To
authorize
a
Party
with
a
critical­
use
exemption
level
in
excess
of
permitted
levels
of
production
and
consumption
to
make
up
any
such
difference
between
those
levels
by
using
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
from
stocks
that
the
Party
has
determined
to
be
available;

4.
That
a
Party
using
stocks
under
paragraph
3
above
shall
prohibit
the
use
of
stocks
in
the
categories
set
forth
in
appendix
II,
when
amounts
from
stocks
combined
with
allowable
production
and
consumption
exceed
the
level
set
forth
in
appendix
I;

5.
That
authorizations
are
subject
to
the
terms
and
conditions
set
forth
under
decision
Ex.
I/
4,
including
elements
such
as
development
of
a
management
plan,
research
on
alternatives
and
enhanced
reporting;

6.
That
Parties
may
request
reconsideration
by
the
Meeting
of
the
Parties
of
an
approved
critical­
use
exemption
in
the
case
of
exceptional
circumstances,
such
as
the
unforeseen
de­
registration
of
an
approved
methyl
bromide
alternative
when
no
other
feasible
alternatives
are
available;

7.
That
where
the
Parties
have
granted
a
critical­
use
exemption
and
a
level
of
production
and
consumption
for
a
particular
Party
for
2005
only,
that
Party
shall
be
entitled
to
request
exemptions
for
2006
and
2007
(
and
a
2005
supplemental
request
if
applicable),
to
be
considered
by
the
Sixteenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
in
accordance
with
decision
IX/
6.
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
28
Appendix
I.
Agreed
critical­
use
levels
Country
Critical­
use
exemption
2005
(
tonnes)
Critical­
use
exemption
2006
(
tonnes)
Critical­
use
exemption
2007
(
tonnes)

Australia
[
145]

Belgium
[
47]

Canada
[
56]

France
[
407]

Greece
[
186]

Italy
[
2,134]

Japan
[
284]

Portugal
[
50]

Spain
[
1,059]

United
Kingdom
[
129]

United
States
of
America
9,446
8,943
8,425
[
]
bracketed
amounts
are
those
recommended
by
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
29
Appendix
II.
Agreed
critical­
use
categories
Country
Categories
of
permitted
critical
uses
Australia
Cut
flowers
 
field;
Cut
flowers
 
protected;
Cut
flowers,
bulbs
 
protected;
Rice
(
consumer
packs);
Strawberry
fruit
 
field;
Strawberry
runners;

Belgium
Asparagus
(
planting
material);
Chicory;
Cucurbits;
Cut
flowers
(
excluding
roses
and
chrysanthemums);
Cut
flowers
(
chrysanthemums);
Leeks
and
onions
 
planting
stock;
Lettuce
and
endive
 
protected;
Nursery;
Pepper,
Eggplant
 
protected;
Orchard
 
pome
fruit
and
berries
 
replant;
Strawberry
runners;
Tomatoes
 
protected;
Tree
nursery
Canada
Strawberry
runners;
Pasta
and
flour
mills
France
Carrots;
Chestnuts;
Cut
flowers,
bulbs
 
protected
and
open
field;
Eggplant,
Pepper,
Tomato
 
protected
and
field;
Forest
nurseries;
Mills
and
processors;
Orchard
and
raspberry
nurseries;
Orchard
and
raspberry
 
replant;
Rice
(
consumer
packs);
Strawberry
runners;
Strawberry
fruit
 
protected
and
open
field;

Greece
Cucurbits
 
protected;
Tomato
 
protected;

Italy
Cut
flowers,
bulbs
 
protected;
Eggplant
 
protected;
Melon
 
protected;
Pepper
 
protected;
Strawberry
fruit
 
protected;
Strawberry
runners;
Tomato
 
protected;

Japan
Chestnuts;
Watermelon;
Melon;
Peppers;
Cucumber
Portugal
Cut
flowers
 
protected
and
open
field;

Spain
Cut
flowers
(
Cadiz
and
Seville)
 
protected;
Cut
flowers
(
Andalusia)
 
protected;
Cut
flowers
(
Catalonia)
 
carnations,
protected
and
open
field;
Peppers
 
protected;
Strawberry
fruit
 
protected;
Strawberry
runners;

United
Kingdom
Cheese
stores
(
traditional);
Ornamental
tree
nursery;
Strawberries
and
raspberries
 
fruit;
Food
storage
(
dry
goods)
 
structure;
Mills
and
processors;
Miscellaneous
dry
nuts,
fruit,
beans,
cereals,
seeds;
Spices
(
structural/
equipment);
Stored
spices;
Tobacco
(
product/
machinery)

United
States
of
America
Chrysanthemum
cuttings
 
rose
plants
(
nursery);
Cucurbits
 
field;
Cut
flowers
and
foliage;
Dried
fruit,
beans
and
nuts;
Eggplant
 
field;
Forest
nursery
seedlings;
Ginger
production
 
field;
Fruit
tree
nurseries;
Meat
processors;
Mills
and
processors;
Orchard
replant;
Miscellaneous
food
storage
and
processing;
Peppers
 
field;
Dried
cured
pork
products;
Strawberry
fruit
 
field;
Strawberry
runners;
Sweet
potato
 
field;
Tobacco
seedbeds
 
field;
Tobacco
seedlings
 
nursery
float
trays;
Tomato
 
field;
Turfgrass
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
30
Appendix
III.
Permitted
levels
of
production
or
consumption
Country
Critical­
use
production
or
consumption
2005
(
tonnes)
Critical­
use
production
or
consumption
2006
(
tonnes)
Critical­
use
production
or
consumption
2007
(
tonnes)

Australia
[
145]

Belgium
[
47]

Canada
[
56]

France
[
407]

Greece
[
186]

Italy
[
2,134]

Japan
[
284]

Portugal
[
50]

Spain
[
1059]

United
Kingdom
[
129]

United
States
of
America
7,659
7,659
7,148
[
]
bracketed
amounts
are
those
recommended
by
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committees
UNEP/
OzL.
Pro.
ExMP/
1/
3
31
Annex
IV
Declaration
on
limitations
on
the
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
by
Austria,
Belgium,
Costa
Rica,
Czech
Republic,
Denmark,
El
Salvador,
Estonia,
Ethiopia,
Finland,
France,
Germany,
Greece,
India,
Indonesia,
Italy,
Jamaica,
Japan,
Jordan,
Kiribati,
Lebanon,
Luxembourg,
Malaysia,
Mexico,
Mozambique,
Netherlands,
Norway,
Poland,
Portugal,
Saint
Lucia,
Serbia
and
Montenegro,
Slovakia,
South
Africa,
Spain,
Sri
Lanka,
Sweden,
Switzerland,
Syrian
Arab
Republic,
Thailand,
Turkey,
United
Kingdom
and
the
European
Community
The
above
Parties
present
at
the
first
Extraordinary
Meeting
of
the
Parties.

Recognizing
that
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
exist
for
most
uses
of
methyl
bromide,
and
noting
that
Parties
have
made
substantial
progress
in
the
adoption
of
effective
alternatives,

Mindful
that
exemptions
must
comply
fully
with
decision
IX/
6
and
are
intended
to
be
limited,
temporary
derogations
from
the
phase­
out
of
methyl
bromide,

Resolved
that
each
Party's
methyl
bromide
use
should
decrease,
targeting
the
closure
of
the
critical­
use
exemption
as
soon
as
possible
in
non­
Article
5
Parties,

Declare
their
firm
intention
at
the
national
level
to
take
all
appropriate
measures
to
strive
for
significantly
and
progressively
decreasing
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
for
critical
uses
with
the
intention
of
completely
phasing
out
methyl
bromide
whenever
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
are
available.

Montreal,
26
March
2004
__________