COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: dangerous substance, environmental impact, environmental monitoring, marketing standard, reduction of gas emissions, stratospheric pollutant, stratospheric pollution, trading operation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.11.2019  SWD(2019) 406 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION        of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer  {SWD(2019) 407 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Purpose and scope ................................................................................................. 1 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ........................................................... 1 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives ................................................. 1 

2.1.1 

The problem ......................................................................................... 1 

2.1.2 

The international policy framework .................................................... 2 

2.1.3 

The EU policy framework ................................................................... 5 

2.1.4 

The intervention logic of the Regulation ............................................. 6 

2.2 Baseline and points of comparison ...................................................................... 10 

2.2.1  Uses of ODS ...................................................................................... 11 

2.2.2  ODS production ................................................................................. 13 

2.2.3 

Emissions from banks ........................................................................ 13 

2.2.4  Control of trade .................................................................................. 13 

3. IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY .................................................................. 14 

3.1  Description of the current situation ................................................................. 14 

3.1.1 

Trends in the EU: Use, production and trade of ODS ....................... 14 

3.1.2 

Implementation of the Regulation ..................................................... 19 

4. METHOD ...................................................................................................................... 21 

4.1 Short description of methodology ....................................................................... 21 

4.1.1 

Stakeholder consultations .................................................................. 21 

4.1.2  Cost assessments ............................................................................... 22 

4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings ............................................................... 22 

5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .................... 23 

5.1 Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 23 

5.1.1 

To what extent have the (general) objectives been achieved?........... 23 

5.1.2  What  factors  had  a  positive  or  negative  influence  on  the 

achievements observed, and how?..................................................... 26 

5.1.3  What  have  been 

the  most  prominent  qualitative  and 
quantitative effects of the Regulation (in line with the specific 
objectives)?  To  what  extent  can  these  effects  be  credited  to 
the Regulation? .................................................................................. 28 

5.2 RELEVANCE ..................................................................................................... 37 

5.2.1 

To what extent is the intervention still relevant? ............................... 37 

 
 
 
5.2.2  How  well  is  the  Regulation  adapted  to  technological  and 

scientific developments?.................................................................... 38 

5.3 EFFICIENCY ...................................................................................................... 39 

5.3.1  Benefits .............................................................................................. 39 

5.3.2  Costs .................................................................................................. 43 

5.3.3 

5.3.4 

To  what  extent  are  the  costs  associated  with  the  Regulation 
proportionate to the benefits achieved? ............................................. 50 

To  what  extent  have  the  measures  been  efficient?  Are  there 
any  unnecessarily  complicated  or  burdensome  aspects  and 
areas of excessive costs? What are the reasons and magnitude 
of  any  identified  inefficiencies?  What  could  be  the  expected 
cost savings if these inefficiencies were absent? ............................... 50 

5.4 COHERENCE ..................................................................................................... 56 

5.4.1 

5.4.2 

To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  coherent  with  relevant 
interventions both at EU and international level? ............................. 56 

To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation`s  structure  and  content 
coherent? ............................................................................................ 60 

5.5 EU ADDED VALUE .......................................................................................... 61 

5.5.1  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  Regulation 
compared  to  what  could  reasonably  have  been  achieved  by 
Member States at national level? ....................................................... 61 

5.5.2  What would be the most likely consequences of withdrawing 

the Regulation? .................................................................................. 63 

6. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 64 

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 67 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................. 68 

ANNEX II: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .......................................................... 71 

ANNEX III: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................. 79 

ANNEX IV: OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND COSTS ........... 100 

ANNEX  V:  SIMPLIFIED  OVERVIEW  -  COMPARING  CORE  MEASURES 
UNDER  THE  MONTREAL  PROTOCOL  WITH  MEASURES  IN  THE 
REGULATION ....................................................................................................... 105 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Bank 

BAT 

BDR 

CFCs 

CO2 eq(uivalent) 

Consumption 

CTC 

EASA 

EEA 

EEAP 

EPRTR 

Feedstock 

The amount of Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) contained in existing 
equipment (e.g. refrigerators), chemical stockpiles, foams and other products, 
including after their end of useful life; or recovered and stored ready for use 

Best Available Technique (as relevant to Industrial Emissions Directive) 

Business Data Repository, an electronic online reporting system managed by 
the European Environment Agency used for company reporting on ODS under 
Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 

Chlorofluorocarbons. Group of ODS consisting only of chlorine, fluorine, and 
carbon. First generation of ozone-depleting substances banned by the 
Montreal Protocol. CFCs were commonly used as refrigerants, solvents, and 
foam blowing agents 

The CO2 equivalent is the quantity of a gas in metric tonnes multiplied by its 
associated global warming potential (GWP). This is used to compare the 
emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming 
potential 

The quantity of ODS produced plus imported, minus exported minus 
destroyed. Calculation of consumption under the Montreal Protocol excludes 
non-virgin imports and exports, as well as substances intended for feedstock 
and process agent use 

Carbon tetrachloride, also called tetrachloromethane. An ODS consisting of 
one carbon atom and four chlorine atoms. It s commonly used as a raw 
material in many industrial uses, including the production of 
chlorofluorocarbons and as a solvent 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

European Environment Agency 

Montreal Protocol’s Environmental Effects Assessment Panel 

European Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry 

Any controlled substance or new substance that undergoes chemical 
transformation in a process to synthesise other chemicals in which it is entirely 
converted from its original composition and where emissions are insignificant 

F-gases 

Fluorinated greenhouse gases 

GHG 

Greenhouse Gas. Any gas that has the property of absorbing infrared radiation 
emitted from Earth’s surface and reradiating it back to Earth’s surface, thus 
contributing to global warming through the so-called “greenhouse effect” 

 
 
 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

GWP 

Halons 

HBFCs 

HCFCs 

HFCs 

HFOs 

HTOC 

ICAO 

ICCAIA 

IED 

iPIC 

ISG 

IMO 

Global Warming Potential. It is a metric for determining the relative 
contribution of a substance to climate warming. The GWP of a substance is set 
relative to the warming effect of CO2 (GWP=1) over a timeframe of 100 years 

Group of ODS containing bromine and fluorine and one or two carbons. Their 
production is banned, but existing (non-virgin) halons may still be placed on 
the EU market for “critical uses”, e.g. for fire-fighting on aircrafts 

Hydrobromofluorocarbons. Group of ODS consisting of hydrogen, bromine, 
fluorine, and carbon 

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Group of ODS consisting of hydrogen, chlorine, 
fluorine and carbon. Second generation of ozone-depleting substances, since 
they were used to replace chlorofluorocarbons due to their lower Ozone-
Depleting Potential (ODP, see definition later) 

Hydrofluorocarbons (do not belong to the ODS groups, but to fluorinated 
gases). A group of F-gases consisting of hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon. They 
have been used as replacements for ODS because they do not deplete the 
ozone layer. However they are powerful GHGs 

Hydrofluoroolefins = Unsaturated HFCs. A group of fluorinated gases 
consisting of hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon with a double bond between two 
carbon atoms. HFOs are alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and 
typically have very low global warming potentials due to the double bond, 
which facilitates breakup of the molecule in the environment 

Montreal Protocol’s Halons Technical Options Committee (sub-group of the 
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel - or TEAP) 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations 

Industrial Emissions Directive 

informal Prior Informed Consent. It is an informal method used by Parties to 
the Montreal Protocol to exchange information about their national licensing 
systems on ODS 

European Commission Inter Service Group accompanying the evaluation 

International Maritime Organisation 

Laboratory and 
analytical uses 

Use of an ODS as a necessary component or part of a laboratory or analytical 
process. Decision IX/17 of the Montreal Protocol introduced an exemption for 
laboratory and analytical uses of ODS 

MB 

MDI 

Methyl Bromide. An ODS consisting of carbon, hydrogen, and bromine. It has 
been used as pesticide to fumigate soil and many agricultural products 

Metered-dose inhaler, i.e. asthma spray 

Methylchloroform 

An ODS consisting of carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine. It is also called 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane. It has been used e.g. as an industrial solvent 

Metric tonnes 

A unit of weight equal to 1,000 kilograms 

Montreal Protocol 

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, an 

 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

international treaty governing the protection of stratospheric ozone 

MOP 

Meeting Of the Parties (to the Montreal Protocol) 

New ODS 

Substances listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, whether alone 
or in a mixture, and whether they are virgin, recovered, recycled or reclaimed. 
These substances are not controlled under the Montreal Protocol 

Non-Article 5 
countries 

Developed countries, i.e. Parties to the Montreal Protocol not operating under 
Article 5 

ODP 

ODP-tonnes 

ODS 

Ozone 

Ozone Depleting Potential. It refers to the amount of ozone depletion caused 
by a substance. More specifically, it is the ratio of global loss of ozone due to a 
given substance and global loss of ozone due to trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-
11) of the same mass. CFC-11 is assigned an ODP value of 1. The OPD values of 
the different ODS range from close to 0 to 10. The higher the ODP value, the 
more the substance depletes the ozone layer 

Metric tonnes of a substance multiplied by its ozone-depleting potential, 
resulting in ODP-weighted tonnes, or in short ODP-tonnes. As an example, 1 
metric tonne of HCFC-22 equals 0.055 ODP-tonnes, whilst 1 metric tonne of 
halon-1301 equals 10 ODP-tonnes. This is because halon-1301 depletes the 
ozone layer considerably more than HCFC-22 

Ozone-Depleting Substances, i.e. substances that lead to a deterioration of the 
stratospheric ozone layer by photochemical reactions releasing reactive 
halogens (bromine, chlorine atoms) that lead to the breakup of ozone 
molecules 

A gas composed of three atoms of oxygen. It is a colourless and very reactive 
gas that is harmful to breathe. It can be found throughout all layers of the 
atmosphere. Most ozone (about 90%) is found in the upper atmosphere 
(stratosphere) and is referred to as the ozone layer. It absorbs most of the 
damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun 

Ozone hole 

A large area of the stratospheric ozone layer with very low amounts of ozone 

Ozone layer 

Region of the upper atmosphere containing relatively high concentrations of 
ozone molecules. It protects humans and other living things from harmful UV 
radiation from the sun 

Ozone layer depletion 

Chemical destruction of ozone molecules in the ozone layer leading to low 
concentrations of ozone and more UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface 

Placing on the market 

Supplying or making available to third persons within the European Union for 
the first time, for payment or free of charge 

Process agents 

QPS 

Process agents are used in chemical reactions in industrial processes but, 
contrary to feedstocks, do not undergo chemical transformations themselves 
during the process. The applications where ODS are allowed to be used as 
process agents are listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 

Quarantine and Pre-Shipment applications. They refer to the use of methyl 
bromide for the control of a diverse range of pests and diseases. 

Quarantine applications target “quarantine pests”, that are pests (or 
pathogens) of potential importance to the areas endangered thereby and not 

 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially 
controlled. 

Pre-shipment applications are treatments applied 21 days or less before 
export and required by exporting country or importing country authorities to 
meet their phytosanitary or sanitary requirements 

Reprocessing of a recovered controlled substance in order to meet the 
equivalent performance of a virgin substance, taking into account its intended 
use 

Collection and storage of controlled substances from products and equipment 
or containers during maintenance or servicing or before disposal 

Reclamation 

Recovery 

Recycling 

Reuse of a recovered controlled substance following a basic cleaning process 

REIO 

RSB 

SAP 

SWD 

TCA 

TEAP 

Regional Economic Integration Organization. The EU is considered a REIO 
pursuant to Article 1(6) of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the 
Ozone Layer 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Scientific Assessment Panel (of the Montreal Protocol) 

Staff Working Document 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane. See methylchloroform above 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (of the Montreal Protocol) 

Tetrachloromethane 

See carbon tetrachloride above 

UV radiation 

UNEP 

UNIDO 

UNDP 

UNFCCC 

US EPA 

Use of ODS 

Ultraviolet radiation. Portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with 
wavelengths shorter than visible light. When the ozone layer becomes thin, 
more UV radiation from the sun reaches Earth’s surface and may have 
hazardous effects on organisms 

United Nations Environment Programme, now UN Environment 

United Nations Industrial Development Organisation 

United Nations Development Programme 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

The utilisation of controlled ODS or new ODS in the production, maintenance 
or servicing, including refilling, of products and equipment or in other 
processes 

Virgin ODS 

ODS that are newly produced and have not previously been used 

WEEE 

WFD 

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

Waste Framework Directive 

 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose and scope 

This  evaluation  assesses  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU 
added value of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 on substances that deplete the ozone 
layer (hereinafter ‘the Regulation’). The Commission carried out this evaluation on its 
own  initiative  to  see  whether  the  Regulation  remains  fit-for-purpose  vis-à-vis 
emerging  needs  in  line  with  the  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  (REFIT) 
programme1. There was no legal requirement to evaluate the legislation. This is the first 
time this Regulation has been evaluated and the findings are intended to provide the basis 
for future decisions on EU ozone layer protection policy. The evaluation also includes a 
number  of  implementing  instruments,  in  particular  regarding  halons  (Commission 
Regulation  (EU)  No 744/2010),  laboratory  and  analytical  uses  of  ODS  (Commission 
Regulation 
(Commission  Decision 
2010/372/EU)  and  quota  allocation  for  laboratory  and  analytical  uses  (Commission 
Regulation (EU) 537/2011). 

(EU)  No  291/2011),  process  agent2  uses 

The  Regulation  is  a  recast  of  Regulation  (EC)  2037/2000.  It  preserved  and  slightly 
expanded  EU  action  on  ozone-depleting  substances  (ODS),  inter  alia  due  to  new 
international obligations. The recast also aimed at simplification. This analysis will show 
to  what  extent  the  changes  made  through  the  latest  revision  in  2009  have  had  the 
expected effect  in the  years 2010-17. However, in order to  understand the benefits  and 
the effectiveness of this Regulation it is also important to look at its ability to sustain and 
continue  past  achievements  of  EU  ozone  layer  protection  policy  over  the  past  four 
decades.  This  evaluation  therefore  covers  all  aspects  of  the  Regulation  in  the  Union  as 
well as certain impacts on non-EU countries. 

2. BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

2.1.1 The problem 

The  ozone  layer  is  a  region  of  the  upper  atmosphere  (i.e.  the  stratosphere)  containing 
relatively  high  concentrations  of  ozone  molecules.  This  “ozone  layer”  protects  humans 
and other living beings from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun.3 Increased 
UV radiation has an adverse impact on human health, e.g. by increasing the incidence of 
skin cancers and cataracts, and on the ecosystems. In the 1970s, scientists discovered that 
emissions  from  certain  synthetic  chemicals  containing  chlorine  or  bromine  in  their 
molecule  could  potentially  destroy  stratospheric  ozone.  Further  research  found  that  the 
growing production and use of these chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or 
halons  in  aerosol  sprays,  fire  protection  equipment,  insulation  materials  (foams),  or 

1  
2 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly_en 

Process agents are used in chemical reactions in industrial processes but, contrary to feedstocks, do not 
undergo chemical transformations themselves during the process. 

3  One must distinguish between ozone in the stratosphere, which is commonly referred to as the ozone 
layer, and ground-level ozone near the Earth’s surface. While the ozone layer protects from  harmful 
UV radiation, excessive amounts of ozone at ground level have detrimental effects on health. 

1 

 
 
                                                 
refrigeration  and  air  conditioning  equipment  was  contributing  to  the  accumulation  of 
ODS in  the stratosphere, causing the  “ozone hole” to  develop  over the  Antarctic.  Most 
ODS  also  are  very  strong  greenhouse  gases4  (GHGs)  and  reducing  their  emissions  is 
therefore also very relevant for avoiding climate change. The risk of emissions depends 
on how and where the ODS is used. For instance, in the case of refrigeration equipment it 
can be assumed that over time a significant5 part of all the ODS used will be emitted to 
the  atmosphere.  Conversely,  the  use  of  ODS  to  produce  other  chemicals  such  as 
polymers, pharmaceuticals and pesticides (the so-called “feedstock” use)6 will only result 
in a small fraction of the ODS emitted, if proper emission control measures are in place. 
Therefore,  it  is  more  important  to  reduce  the  use  in  e.g.  refrigeration  equipment  (so-
called  “emissive  uses”)  than  the  use  as  feedstock.  Conversely,  good  controls  over  the 
feedstock  sector  are  very  important  given  the  large  amounts  of  ODS  still  used  in  this 
sector and to avoid that such substances could be (illegally) diverted to other uses.  

2.1.2 The international policy framework 

In 1985, the international community adopted the Vienna Convention for the protection 
of  the  ozone  layer7,  as  a  framework  treaty  for  legal  and  practical  global  action.  The 
objectives of the Vienna Convention are for Parties to promote cooperation by means of 
systematic  observations,  research  and  information  exchange  on  the  effects  of  human 
activities on the ozone layer and to adopt relevant legislative or administrative measures. 
In  particular,  the  Vienna  Convention  stipulates  in  Article  2(1),  “Parties  shall  take 
appropriate  measures  [..]  to  protect  human  health  and  the  environment  against  adverse 
effects  resulting or likely  to  result from  human  activities which modify  or are likely to 
modify the ozone layer.”  

In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Vienna  Convention,  the  international 
community adopted in 1987 the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 
Layer, which was eventually ratified by  198 parties.8 The Protocol protects the ozone 
layer by phasing-out the production and consumption of  the controlled substances 
in  order  to  reduce  emissions  of  these  substances.  The  Protocol  has  been  amended  a 
number  of  times9  to  enable,  among  other  things,  the  control  of  new  chemicals.  Most 
recently,  the  Kigali  Amendment  introduced  controls  on  hydrofluorocarbons  (HFCs)10 
from  2019.  Regulation  (EU)  No  517/2014  on  fluorinated  greenhouse  gases  (the  “Fgas 
Regulation”) ensures the EU’s compliance with the obligations related to HFCs. 

4  One molecule of most ODS warms the atmosphere thousands of times more than a molecule of CO2 
5  These emissions can be more than the original ODS “charge” inside a new piece of equipment (e.g. a 
fridge) over its lifetime due to recharging of leaky equipment or accidental full releases of the charge. 

In feedstock use the chemical is fully used up during the process of synthesizing other chemicals. 

6 
7  The Vienna Convention entered into force in 1988: 

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-2&chapter=27&clang=_en  

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-2-a&chapter=27&clang=_en  

8  
9   London Amendment (1990), Copenhagen Amendment (1992), Vienna Amendment (1995), Montreal 

Amendment (1997), Beijing Amendment (1999) and the Kigali Amendment (2016). 

10  HFCs are not ODS, i.e. they do not affect the stratospheric ozone layer, but are very strong GHGs. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
The Montreal Protocol is considered one of the most successful examples of international 
cooperation  on  environmental  issues.  It  has  triggered  the  reduction  of  ODS  for  non-
exempted uses by 98% compared to 1990 levels.11 

The core obligations for Parties to the Montreal Protocol include: 
  a  gradual  phase-out  of  the  production  and  consumption12  of  the  controlled 

substances according to specified time schedules; 

 

reporting data on the production, use, import and export of the controlled substances 
to the Ozone Secretariat13; and 

  establishing an import and export licensing system for the controlled substances. 

Table  1  below  shows  the  ODS  controlled,  their  most  common  use  and  their  phase-out 
date for developed countries14. HCFCs are the only substance group where the phase-out 
has not already been completed in developed countries. 

Table  1.  ODS  controlled  by  the  Montreal  Protocol  and  their  phase-out  schedules 
under the Montreal Protocol. 

Acronym 

Description 

Most common uses 

CFCs 

Chlorofluorocarbons 

1st  generation  refrigerants,  cleaning 
solvents,  aerosol  propellants,  foam 
blowing agents 

Phase-out 
developed countries  

date 

for 

 Phased out end of 1995 

Halons 

CTC 

TCA 

MB 

Halons  (1211,  1301  and 
2402) 

extinguishants, 

Fire 
suppressants 

explosion 

Phased out end of 1993 

Carbontetrachloride 

chemical 

Feedstock15 
CFC 
production,  cleaning  and  industrial 
solvent 

in 

Phased out end of 1995 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

Cleaning solvent, aerosol propellant, 
feedstock chemical 

Phased out end of 1995 

Methyl bromide 

Fumigant  for  control  of  soil-borne 
pests  and  diseases  in  crops  and 
stored commodities 

Phased out end of 2005 

HBFCs 

Hydrobromofluorocarbons  Fire suppressants 

Phased out end of 1995 

11 
12 

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg-37/presession/Background_documents/Briefing_note_on_exemptions.pdf 

‘Consumption’ is an aggregated parameter calculated for data reported under the Montreal Protocol. In 
brief, consumption is calculated as: production + imports – exports – destruction. The amount recycled 
and reused is not considered and some uses are exempted. 

13  The Ozone Secretariat is the Secretariat for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol and is 

carried out by UN Environment; http://ozone.unep.org/  

14  Parties  that  are  not  covered  by  Article  5  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  (“non-Article  5  countries”).  For 

developing countries more time, usually about one decade, is given to achieve the phase-outs 

15  Feedstock  means  the  use  of  a  substance  in  chemical  production  whereby  the  substance  itself  is 
completely used up in the process for the synthesis of other chemicals or products such as refrigerants, 
foam blowing agents, polymers, pharmaceuticals or agricultural chemicals.  

3 

 
 
                                                 
Acronym 

Description 

Most common uses 

HCFCs 

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons  2nd generation refrigerants, cleaning 
solvents,  foam  blowing  agents,  fire 
extinguishants, feedstock chemicals 

Phase-out 
developed countries  

date 

for 

Freeze from beginning of 1996 
35% reduction by 2004 
75% reduction by 2010 
90% reduction by 2015 
Total phase-out by 202016 

BCM 

Bromochloromethane 

Fire suppressant 

Phased out end of 2002 

Even  though  many  substance(s)  may  have  been  phased  out,  some  ODS  continue  to  be 
used (See table 2). 
Firstly,  only  virgin17  substances  counts  towards  Montreal  Protocol  consumption.  This 
means that reclaimed and recycled substances may still be used after the phase-out date. 
For instance, whereas production and consumption of virgin halons were 'phased-out' in 
1993, recycled or reclaimed halons may still be used in certain fire equipment under the 
rules of the Montreal Protocol. 

Secondly,  certain  specific  uses  of  virgin  ODS  are  exempt  from  the  phase-out.  These 
exemption mechanisms target uses for which it is perceived that suitable alternatives do 
not exist. In this way, the Montreal Protocol has ensured that the functioning of Parties’ 
economies is not disrupted while at the same time ensuring an effective protection of the 
ozone layer.18 The main exempted uses are feedstock use, specific process agent uses in 
installations existing before 1999, specific laboratory and analytical uses and  the use of 
methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment treatment (QPS) against plant pests. 

Finally,  a  number  of  relatively  new  ozone  depleting  substances  (new  ODS)  are  not 
controlled under the Montreal Protocol.  

Table  2.  Types  of  uses  and  substances  covered  and  not  covered  by  the  phase-out 
dates (and the consumption metric) under the Montreal Protocol 

Covered  by  the  Montreal  Protocol 
phase-out obligations  

Not  covered  by 
Protocol phase-out obligations  

the  Montreal 

Virgin  vs.  non-virgin 
substances. 

Only virgin substances 

Non-Virgin:  recycled  or  reclaimed  substances 
and substances for destruction 

Controlled uses  
vs. exempted uses 

All uses are covered, unless specifically exempted 

Exempted  uses:  Feedstock,  Process  agents, 
laboratory and analytical, and specific uses of 
halons and methyl bromide  

Controlled ODS 

Controlled  substances:  CFCs,  Halons,  CTC,  TCA,  New ODS19: 

16  Up  to  0.5%  of  base  level  consumption  can  be  used  from  2020  until  2030  for  servicing  existing 

refrigeration and air conditioning equipment and some other specific uses 

“Virgin substances” means newly produced substances, as opposed to reclaimed/recycled substances. 

17 
18 
http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg-37/presession/Background_documents/Briefing_note_on_exemptions.pdf 
19  New  ODS  are  not  controlled  by  the  Montreal  Protocol,  but  monitored  by  the  Regulation.  They  are 

listed in Annex II to the Regulation. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Covered  by  the  Montreal  Protocol 
phase-out obligations  

Not  covered  by 
Protocol phase-out obligations  

the  Montreal 

BCM, MB, HBFCs and HCFCs 

Halon 1202 (Fire suppressant) 
Trifluoroiodomethane (Fire suppressant) 
Methylchloride (Feedstock, solvent) 
Ethylbromide (Feedstock, solvent) 
n-Propylbromide (Feedstock, solvent) 

Even  if  substances  and  uses  are  not  covered  by  the  phase-out  dates,  they  are  often 
covered  by  other  provisions  and  decisions  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  and  the  Vienna 
Convention,  such  as  the  obligations  to  report,  control  trade  and  take  measures  to 
minimise  emissions.  In  many  cases,  the  level  of  action  needed  to  comply  with  these 
measures  is  not  prescribed  in  detail.  In  addition,  while  some  actions  are  formally 
voluntary,  there  is  an  expectation  that  Parties  make  the  relevant  effort  commensurate 
with the objective of the action20.  

In  the  context  of  the  Montreal  Protocol,  the  EU  is  a  regional  economic  integration 
organization  (REIO)21.  This  implies  a  common  (EU-wide)  phase-out  schedule  for 
consumption and an obligation to comply (only) jointly as EU. For the production phase-
out  this  is  not  the  case.  Here  the  remaining  five  Member  States22  that  still  have  ODS 
production on their territory are responsible for their own compliance under the Montreal 
Protocol.23 

2.1.3 The EU policy framework 

Since  the  1980s  the  European  Union  has  taken  a  leading  role  in  global  efforts  to 
phase-out ODS in order to preserve the ozone layer. A number of Council Decisions 
and  Regulations  started  regulating  certain  CFCs  and  halons  in  the  1980s.24  Regulation 
(EC)  No  2037/2000  preceded  the  current  Regulation.  It  ensured  compliance  with  the 
Montreal Protocol, including the production phase-out schedules for various ODS25. The 
ambition  of  past  EU  ozone  policies  has  been  that  the  EU  would  lead  by  example  in 
implementing  the  Montreal  Protocol  rules.  This  did  not  only  mean  stricter  and  faster 
phase-outs of ODS, but also adopting effective policy measures that would ensure good 
enforcement  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  rules.  In  this  way,  also  other  Parties  are 
encouraged  to  do  the  same,  with  the  ultimate  aim  to  maximise  the  impact  of  the 
global effort. 

Therefore, many obligations under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 were stricter than the 
core  requirements  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  and  very  comprehensive.  The  Commission 
partially  reviewed  Regulation  (EC)  No  2037/2000  in  2008.  This  led  to  the  adoption  of 

20  A table explaining measures that are strictly required, others that are needed for good enforcement of 
Montreal Protocol obligations and those few measures that go clearly beyond is included in Annex V. 

21  Pursuant to Article 1(6) of the Vienna Convention. 
22  Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands 
23  The Regulation enables them to comply by including specific requirements for producing companies 

to reduce their production. See 2.1.3 

24  Council Decision 80/372/EEC, Council Decision 82/795/EEC, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3322/88. 
25  Even  though  these  do  not  fall  under  the  REIO  clause  and  must  be  directly  complied  by  the  few 

Member States concerned. See section 2.1.2 above. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  current  Regulation.  Most  measures  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2037/2000  were  simply 
maintained as the main purpose of the review was to:  

  simplify  and  recast  Regulation  (EC)  No  2037/2000  to  reduce  unnecessary 

administrative burden, 

  ensure  compliance  with  the  Montreal  Protocol  as  regards  the  accelerated  phase-out 
schedule for HCFC production agreed under the Montreal Protocol in 200726, and 

  make sure that future challenges are addressed. 

Since the impact assessment (EC, 2008) of the current Regulation mainly focused on the 
points  listed  above,  it  is  not  a  sufficient  basis  for  benchmarking  the  Regulation  in  its 
totality. Nonetheless, while examining the overall fitness of the Regulation, the analysis 
also investigated if the expected impacts from the review have materialised. 

2.1.4 The intervention logic of the Regulation 

The intervention logic of the Regulation is based on the need to ensure a recovery of 
the  ozone  layer  to  reduce  the  risks  to  humans,  ecosystems  and  sustainable 
development  as  well  as  avoiding  climate  warming  caused  by  emissions  from  ODS 
(Figure 1).  

In light of this need, the Regulation has the following general objectives: 

  Ensure that the EU is compliant with the agreements that the international 
community  has  put  in  place  to  protect  the  ozone  layer:  these  are  first  and 
foremost  the  Vienna  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the  Ozone  Layer  and  the 
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.27  

  Have  a  high  level  of  ambition  for  protecting  the  ozone  layer  and  fighting 
climate change. The EU wants to be more ambitious and comprehensive than the 
core  Montreal  Protocol  requirements  in  areas  where  this  is  technically  and 
economically feasible.  

The  general,  specific  and  operational  objectives  will  be  achieved  through  a  set  of 
activities  (or  measures).  These  activities  represent  two  different  approaches  to  prevent 
ODS  from  reaching  the  atmosphere,  either  by  (i)  reducing  the  use  of  virgin  and  non-
virgin ODS in the first place, or by (ii) minimising emissions where ODS are in use  or 
have  been  used.  In  addition,  some  activities  serve  to  facilitate  enforcement  and 
monitoring. 

It  is  in  general  difficult  (or  even  not  meaningful)  to  distinguish  between  EU  measures 
strictly  necessary  for  complying  with  the  international  agreements  and  EU  measures 
going beyond. As regards the prohibitions in the EU Regulation, it is straightforward to 
state  whether  the  EU  is  more  ambitious  than  the  Montreal  Protocol  (see  Annex  VI). 
Conversely, for other measures such  a distinction  is  often not  meaningful,  e.g. in  areas 
where  Montreal  Protocol  Decisions  request  Parties  to  take  action  without  specifying 
concrete measures.  

26  Decision XIX/6 of Parties to the Montreal Protocol: 

https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/MP_Handbook_2019.pdf  

27  Except  for  HFCs,  where  compliance  is  achieved  via  Regulation  (EU)  No  517/2014  on  fluorinated 

greenhouse gases (the Fgas Regulation). See section 2.1.2. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
Still,  it  has  been  the  EU’s  aim  to  have  an  effective  and  efficient  approach  to  measures 
that could deliver an ambitious EU ozone policy, serving as best practice to the rest of the 
world and enabling the EU to credibly lead by example, see section 5.1.3.5. Since ozone 
policies  are  already  successfully  eliminating  the  use  of  ODS  in  the  most  relevant 
application areas, the focus today is to a large degree on maintaining this success through 
effective mechanisms and by policing the rules. By demonstrating best practice, the EU 
can also lead by example in this respect. 

2.1.4.1 Reducing the use of ODS 

Chapter II Prohibitions, Chapter III Exemptions and derogations and Chapter IV Trade 
cover the reduction of ODS uses. The Regulation generally prohibits the production, 
import  and  use  of  ODS,  including  in  equipment  and  products.  In  this  way,  the 
Regulation  is  locking  in  and  consolidating  progress  achieved  through  previous 
Regulations.  Avoiding  the  redeployment  of  gases  that  have  already  been  phased  out  is 
also necessary to safeguard continued compliance with the Montreal Protocol phase-out 
dates, e.g. for CFCs. As regards HCFCs, not yet fully phased out under the Protocol, the 
Regulation maintained the prohibition from the previous Regulation to stop consumption 
of  virgin  HCFCs  by  2010;  10  years  ahead  of  the  phase-out  date  under  the  Montreal 
Protocol.  It  also  maintained  that  servicing  of  equipment  with  non-virgin  HCFC  was 
allowed (only) until 2015. For production, the Regulation moved forward the phase-out 
date  for  HCFCs  from  2025  to  2020  in  line  with  the  accelerated  production  schedule 
agreed under the Montreal Protocol (Decision XIX/626).  

7 

 
 
 
Figure 1 – The intervention logic of the Regulation 

8 

 
 
 
The Regulation allows ODS uses under its exemptions and derogation clauses, in cases 
where technically or economically suitable substitutes or alternatives were deemed to not 
be readily  available.28  For instance,  as  it is  the  case under the Montreal  Protocol, ODS 
used  as  feedstock  in  chemical  processes  are  exempted  from  phase-out  measures. 
However, contrary to the Montreal Protocol, the Regulation prohibits the use of methyl 
bromide for QPS uses (unless under emergency situations) and specifies phase-out dates 
for the use of halons.  

As  required  by  the  Montreal  Protocol,  the  Regulation  includes  a  licensing  system  for 
import and export of ODS. The EU system is  more complex than strictly necessary for 
compliance under the Montreal Protocol. The Regulation requires licences per shipment 
(except for remaining uses of halons on aircraft), covers equipment relying on ODS (not 
just trade of the gases  themselves)  and includes the control  of trade under a number of 
different customs procedures beyond the simple release for free circulation into customs 
territory.  Furthermore,  the  Regulation  requires  registration  of  laboratories  using  ODS, 
quota systems for some exempted uses, labelling of ODS and ODS equipment, national 
inspections,  and  consultation  with  third  countries.  The  aim  of  these  measures  was  to 
enable strict enforcement of the prohibitions and prevention of illegal activities.  

2.1.4.2 Minimising emissions of ODS 

Chapter V Emission Control in the Regulation includes measures to reduce losses to 
the  atmosphere  from  production  and  from  ODS  equipment  as  well  as  requiring 
proper  waste  treatment  at  the  end  of  life  of  products  and  equipment  containing 
ODS,  the  so-called  ODS  “banks”29.  Leakage  prevention  measures  include  obligatory 
leakage  checks  and  record  keeping,  minimum  qualification  requirements  for  personnel 
servicing the equipment and strengthened provisions on ODS recovery obligations.  The 
provisions  on recycling  and destruction contained in  the Regulation  mirror those in  the 
EU  Waste  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  the  Waste  from  Electric  and  Electronic 
Equipment (WEEE) Directive. The intention was to enable a better implementation and 
enforcement  of  existing  waste  legislation,  rather  than  going  beyond  the  latter.Error! 
Bookmark not defined.  

2.1.4.3 Reporting obligations and monitoring 

Chapter  VII  Committee,  Reporting,  Inspection  and  Penalties  in  the  Regulation 
provides  data  for  obligatory  reporting  under  the  Montreal  Protocol  and  to  follow 
progress  on  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  in  the  EU.  Member  States  and 
undertakings must report certain data to the Commission. The reported data is analysed 
in an annual EU report30 and used for obligatory reporting to the Montreal Protocol. To 
be  able  to  identify  new  threats  from  ODS  not  covered  by  the  Montreal  Protocol,  the 

28  The Regulation contains general exemptions for some uses that reflect the state of technology known 
at  the  time  of  the  drafting  of  the  Regulation.  The  Regulation  also  allows  for  Commission  Decisions 
authorising case-specific derogations from a prohibition  based on a justified request  from a Member 
State. 

29  While the production and use of ODS, and particularly CFCs, has long been dramatically reduced, a 
substantial fraction of CFCs and other ODS have not yet been released to the atmosphere, but are still 
enclosed in products and equipment, including foams and refrigerators in landfills. These reservoirs of 
ODS are referred to as “banks”.  

30  Produced  by  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  based  on  company  reporting  data  from  the 

Regulation since 2011. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Regulation  also  requires  companies  to  report  on  such  substances  (the  so-called  “new 
ODS”). Chapter VI New substances introduces a production, import and placing on the 
market  prohibition  for  one  new  ODS  (halon  1202)  and  empowers  the  Commission  to 
adopt additional prohibitions for other new ODS, if this would appear appropriate on the 
basis  of  an  assessment  by  the  Scientific  Assessment  Panel  (SAP)  under  the  Montreal 
Protocol. This empowerment has not yet been used.  

2.1.4.4 Partial review in 2008 

The changes in the Regulation were in particular related to: 

  Reduction  of  administrative  burden  by  clarifying  and  simplifying  the  Regulation, 

streamlining reporting, and updating exemption regimes.  

  Bringing forward a prohibition to produce HCFCs to 2020, in line with the Montreal 
Protocol,  and  strengthening  enforcement  including  the  prevention  of  illegal  and 
harmful trade.  

  Challenges linked to ODS contained (or "banked") in products and equipment even 
after its useful life; new and short-lived ODS that were not covered by the previous 
Regulation  or  by  the  Montreal  Protocol;  and  the  use  of  methyl  bromide  for  QPS 
uses.  

2.2 Baseline and points of comparison  

The Regulation applies from 1 January 2010, so normally the baseline for the evaluation 
would be the status quo in 2009. However, since the Regulation locks in the significant 
achievements  of  previous  EU  Decisions  and  Regulations  on  ODS  and  the  recast  only 
concerned  relatively  minor  adjustments,  the  most  appropriate  baselines  for  the 
environmental  effects  of  reducing  production  and  consumption  are  the  initial  EU 
baselines  under  the  Montreal  Protocol.  The  Regulation  locks  in  a  99%  reduction  of 
ODS consumption and production compared to these baselines (Figure 2). Without a 
continued  application  of  strict  measures  and  their  enforcement,  uses  of  ODS  that  were 
eliminated in the past could return31. This is a key function of the Regulation.  

The 2008 partial review did not change many of these significant measures in place. Only 
modest additional progress was expected from the (limited) new measures in a few areas. 
It  is  therefore  useful  to  look  at  the  overall  achievements  of  all  measures  of  the 
Regulation, including the progress made as a result of the (i) the measures not modified 
by the partial review, as well as (ii) the additional measures that applied only from 2010.   

31  As appears to have recently happened in China, see also section 5.2.1 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2 – EU ODS consumption  and production in 1986  – 2006, as defined under 
the Montreal Protocol12 

EC (2008) 

2.2.1 Uses of ODS 

The  impact  assessment  estimated  that,  due  to  a  prohibition  already  included  in  the 
previous Regulation, all virgin ODS measured as Montreal Protocol consumption would 
be fully phased out by 2010 (Figure 3 upper diagram, [Use of HCFC (virgin)]). 

As regards other ODS uses, the impact assessment expected, due to existing prohibitions 
in  the  previous  Regulation,  that  the  use  of  recycled  or  reclaimed  HCFCs  for  servicing 
equipment would go from 1,000 ODP in 2010 to zero in 2015 [Use of HCFC (recycled or 
reclaimed)]. The use of  CFCs for metered-dose inhalers [Essential  Use CFC-MDI) and 
the use of methyl bromide for fumigation32 [Critical Use MB] would also reach zero in 
2010 (Figure 3 upper diagram).  

32  Excluding QPS uses, see further below. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3 – Expected level of ODS used in the EU until 2020 (in ODP tonnes)  

EC(2008) 

N.b.: For process agents and feedstock use only the resulting emissions, not total use is shown 

The  uses  that  were  exempted  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  2037/2000  were  forecasted  to 
remain stable until 2020 without further measures. Specifically, it was estimated that: 

  Emissions  from  feedstock  (Figure 3  lower  diagram)  would  remain  around  600  ODP 
tonnes  (assuming  a  loss  of  1%  during  production  processes).  Further  measures  to 
reduce emissions were seen in the review to fall under the scope of industrial pollution 
policies. 

  QPS uses of methyl bromide (Figure 3 lower diagram) would stay at about 200 ODP 
tonnes yearly. These emissions were expected to be saved from 2010 onwards due to 
a new prohibition introduced by the Regulation in 2009. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Laboratory and analytical uses (Figure 3 upper diagram) would stay at about 200 ODP 

tonnes until 2020.  

  500  ODP  tonnes  of  recycled  or  reclaimed  halons  (Figure 3  lower  diagram)  would 
serve  critical  applications  (e.g.  in  military,  aviation,  maritime  and  oil  and  gas 
exploration).  

  Emissions  related  to  exempted  process  agents  use  (Figure 3  lower  diagram)  would 

remain at 20 ODP tonnes.  

  The impact assessment therefore expected few additional emission savings from these 
uses  (except  for  QPS  use  of  methyl  bromide)  due  to  new  measures  in  the  current 
Regulation.  

2.2.2 ODS production 

The EU ODS production baseline under the Montreal Protocol is close to 700,000 ODP 
tonnes.  In  2010,  EU  production  counting  towards  the  Montreal  Protocol phase-out  was 
estimated to be only 4,000 ODP tonnes, mostly serving the needs of non-EU countries. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2037/2000  required  a  gradual  phase-out  by  2025,  but  companies 
were expected to adapt their production schedules ahead of time so that an accelerated 
production phase-out as mandated by the Montreal Protocol by 2020 which was put 
into  EU  law  by  the  Regulation,  was  seen  as  achievable  and  considered  a  de  facto 
base  case  with  no  additional  savings  by  the  impact  assessment.  Furthermore,  the 
production of the new ODS, not covered by the Montreal Protocol, was projected to be 
up to 20,600 ODP tonnes from 2010-2020, while emissions of new ODS in the EU were 
estimated to total less than 300 ODP tonnes per year, albeit growing steadily.  

2.2.3 Emissions from banks 

ODS  banks  in  the  EU  were  estimated  at  approximately  700,000  ODP  tonnes  in  2010, 
33 These banks represent potential future emissions. 
equivalent to 5 billion tonnes of CO2.
Annual  emissions  over  the  period  2005-15  from  banks  were  believed  to  range  up  to 
24,000  ODP  tonnes  per  annum  or  up  to  170  million  tonnes  of  CO2  equivalent.  These 
estimates  were  subject  to  a  large  degree  of  uncertainty.  Provisions  on  use  and  on 
recycling  and  destruction  contained  in  the  Regulation  as  well  as,  most  importantly, 
parallel  provisions  in  the  EU  Waste  Framework  Directive  and  the  Waste  from  Electric 
and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, including their effective enforcement, were 
expected  to  capture  up  to  14,000  ODP  tonnes  p.a.,  even  though  current  EU  waste 
recycling and recovery rates were acknowledged to be very low. The highest potential 
emissions  savings  (between  0  to  14,000  ODP  tonnes)  were  expected  in  this  area, 
following  the  adaption  of  the  recovery  provisions  and  parallel  action  under  the 
waste policy framework.  

2.2.4 Control of trade 

As regards the licensing system, it was expected that the number of licences that would 
be processed annually through the on-line  ODS data base system  would decrease to  an 
estimated 1,000 in 2010 (from almost 3,000 in 2002 when the system was first launched). 

33  Tonnes  CO2  equivalent  is  the  quantity  of  a  GHG  in  metric  tonnes  multiplied  by  its  global  warming 

potential (GWP). 

13 

 
 
                                                 
The extension of the licensing system introduced by the review (i.e. more stringent 
export  control,  per  shipment  licensing  for  exports  and  equipment,  licensing  for 
additional  customs  procedures)  was  expected  to  be  offset  by  simplification  of  the 
licensing system and reporting requirements, according to the impact assessment. 

3. IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

3.1 Description of the current situation  

3.1.1 Trends in the EU: Use, production and trade of ODS 

Most of the data in this section, if not identified otherwise, was obtained from the annual 
European Environmental Agency’s (EEA) reports on ODS (see 5.1.3.4). 

3.1.1.1 Remaining uses of ODS 

Considering the general objectives of the Regulation, it is useful to distinguish between 
consumption  as  defined  under  the  Montreal  Protocol  and  the  use  of  ODS  more 
broadly.34ODS counted by the Montreal Protocol as consumption have been at negative 
levels  in  the  period  2010-2017  (Figure 4),  which  means  that  every  year  more  of  these 
ODS were destroyed or  exported than produced or imported.35  Hence, the EU has been 
clearly  below  the  limits  set  under  the  Montreal  Protocol  (see  dotted  line  in  Figure  4). 
These  low  levels  are  the  result  of  the  extensive  prohibitions  of  the  Regulation,  in 
combination with rather high destruction rates and decreasing stocks.  

34  Montreal  Protocol  consumption  does  not  e.g.  include  reclaimed  gases  or  exempted  uses  such  as  the 

(significant) production for feedstock (see section 2.1.2 and table 2).  

35  The  only  positive  consumption  of  ODS  reported  for  2012  was  caused  by  a  significant  increase  of 
stocks destined for destruction, but not yet destroyed by year’s end, and feedstock use outside the EU 
(not  all  production  for  export  was  exported  in  2012).  See  EEA  (2013),  Ozone-depleting  substances 
2012, p. 9. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 4 – ODS  consumption  in  the  EU  as  measured  under  the  Montreal  Protocol 
for 2009-2017 (in metric and ODP tonnes) 

N.b.: The red dotted line indicates the Montreal Protocol compliance limit (in ODP tonnes)   

EEA Report on ODS (2018)  

At  the  same  time,  ODS  not  counted  as  consumption  by  the  Montreal  Protocol  as 
consumption  including  new  ODS  continue  to  be  used  in  the  EU  in  significant 
quantities  (Figure 5).  The  total  used  quantity  ranged  between  45,000  and  70,000  ODP 
tonnes.  The  increase  between  2010  and  2012  is  seen  as  resulting  from  the  post-2019 
crisis recovery of the chemical sector36. Since 2013 ODS use has remained fairly stable 
in the EU. 

36  Since feedstock use in chemical production is the dominant use; see further below. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 5 – Total  quantity of ODS used in the EU  from 2010-2017  (in  ODP  tonnes; 
both ODS and new ODS as well as virgin and non-virgin substances are included)37 

Ramboll (2019)  

–  The  most  significant  of  the  remaining  ODS  uses  is  feedstock  use  in  chemical 
production,  on  which  many  other  sectors  rely.  Other  ODS  uses  pale  in  comparison 
(smaller  by  a  factor  of  100  or  more).  Emissions  related  to  these  feedstock  uses  were 
however  only  62  and  26  ODP  tonnes  in  2016  and  2017,  respectively  (excluding  new 
ODS). 

–  The  use  of  non-virgin  HCFCs  for  servicing  equipment  was  phased  out  by  2015  as 
anticipated. A few derogations were granted from 2010 onwards resulting in a maximum 
total use of 3 ODP tonnes. The last derogation expired in 2018. 

–  The use of methyl bromide for QPS in the EU was zero in recent years in accordance 
with the prohibition from 18 March 2010 onwards, newly introduced in the Regulation. 

–  Remaining  uses  for  laboratories  and  analyses  are  today  at  levels  lower  than  1  ODP 

tonne per year.38 

–  The  use  of  recycled  and  reclaimed  halons  for  critical  applications  continues  at  the 
anticipated  levels  of  around  500  ODP  per  year  (see  section  5.1.3.2).  The  Regulation 
introduced dates by which the use of halons would be prohibited. Some of these dates are 
however quite far out into the future (until 2040).  

–  Process agent use of ODS has shown a clear declining trend since 2013. Their use for 
make-up39  is  today  at  levels  of  324  metric  tonnes  (i.e.  351  ODP  tonnes)  and  their 
emissions  amount  to  4.1  metric  tonnes  (4.5  ODP  tonnes)  (data  for  2017).  This  is  well 
below the EU limit of 1,083 metric tonnes for use and of 17 metric tonnes for emissions 
under  the  Montreal  Protocol40  and  mentioned  in  the  Regulation.  Process  agent  use  of 

37  Calculated as: Total quantity used = Total production of  ODS and new ODS + Total import of ODS 
and  new  ODS  (virgin,  recovered  and  reclaimed)  –  Total  export  of  ODS  and  new  ODS  (virgin, 
recovered  and  reclaimed)  –  Destruction.  For  the  years  2010  and  2011,  no  data  on  new  ODS  was 
available  on  the  production  for  feedstock  use  outside  the  EU.  Furthermore,  for  2010,  no  destruction 
data  for  new  ODS  was  available.  Hence,  the  aggregated  2010  use  is  likely  to  be  overestimated  for 
these years. 

38  0.2 ODP tonnes in 2017 
39 

“Make-up”  means  the  total  quantity  of  an  ODS  in  metric  tonnes,  whether  virgin,  recovered  or 
reclaimed, that has not been used in the process cycle before but is newly fed into the cycle. 

40  Decision X/14 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on process agents, that has been updated through 

Decisions XV/6, XVII/7, XIX/15, XXI/3, XXII/8, XXIII/7 and XXIX/7. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
ODS is  limited to certain  applications and certain installations that  existed in  1997  and 
where  replacing  ODS  was  considered  prohibitively  expensive  due  to  necessary  plant 
modifications. Due to an unexpected increase in the use of process agents in the 2000s, 
which  put  the  compliance  with  use  and  emission  limits  decided  under  the  Montreal 
Protocol at risk, the Commission adopted in 2010 a decision setting limits for the use and 
emissions  for the eight remaining installations.41  In  2013, the Commission adapted that 
decision and now only six installations may use process agents.42  

3.1.1.2 EU Production of ODS 

–  Production  of  ODS  as  measured  by  the  Montreal  Protocol  (i.e.  for  non-exempted 
uses) is very limited. The production of HCFCs has declined to 28 ODP tonnes (2017) 
in anticipation of the production phase-out by 2020.  

–  The  total  EU  production  of  ODS  today  is  almost  exclusively  directed  at  feedstock 
use43 (over 90%) while, compared to the period before 2010, the production of ODS for 
other purposes than feedstock was significantly reduced. Total production of ODS in the 
years 2010 to 2017 has remained fairly stable, as anticipated, both in total metric tonnes 
as well as in ODP tonnes (Figure 6). The most relevant substances based on ODP tonnes 
were  carbontetrachloride  (CTC)  and  HCFCs  (for  feedstock).  Production  of  new  ODS 
(also  mostly  feedstock)  was  relatively  stable  during  2010-2017,  at  about  a  third  of  the 
production  of  ODS  (in  ODP  tonnes)  covered  by  the  Montreal  Protocol.  98%  of  this 
quantity is methylchloride that was not considered to be included in the monitoring at the 
time of the impact assessment for the 2010 partial review. The total EU production of the 
other new ODS was 4,760 metric tonnes in 2017 (3,600 metric tonnes in 2016) and thus 
above the expected average production levels of up to 2,060 metric tonnes per year. 

41  Commission Decision 2010/372/EU of 18 June 2010. 
42  Commission Implementing Decision 2014/8/EU of 10 October 2013. 
43  Feedstock use is not included as consumption under the Montreal Protocol. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 6 – Total production of ODS and new ODS in the EU (2009-2017) 

EEA Report on ODS (2018)  

3.1.1.3 Banks 

Old refrigeration equipment with ODS is quickly disappearing from the waste stream44, 
which is leading to reduced emissions from banks in Europe for HCFC-22 (i.e. the most 
commonly  used  HCFC  refrigerant)45  Conversely,  for  foams  a  large  bank  of  ODS  still 
exists (see Figure 7 for CFCs), in particular CFC blown foam that was used for building 
insulation.46 A large part of these CFCs will remain in the foam during the whole service 
life of the insulation layer, and may be emitted in the future if, at the foam’s end of life, 
the waste it is not managed properly. Foams, especially if used in construction, can have 
useful  lifetimes  of  50  years  or  longer.  In  2015,  around  97%  of  ODS  retirements  were 
estimated  to  be  from  the  foams  sector  while  by  2020  the  majority  of  the  refrigeration 
bank will have disappeared (SKM Enviros, 2012).Error! Bookmark not defined. The total size of 
the bank in the EU in 2010 was estimated in the impact assessment, although with a high 
degree  of  uncertainty,  at  700,000  ODP  tonnes,  while  a  later  expert  study  estimated 
570,000 ODP tonnes (SKM Enviros, 2012).Error! Bookmark not defined. Annual emissions from 
ODS  banks  are  estimated  to  be  in  the  range  of  17,000-24,000  ODP  tonnes  in  the  EU 
(compared to 180,000 globally) (SKM Enviros, 2012). The challenge is to ensure that the 

ICF (2018). ODS destruction in the United States and abroad. EPA 430-R-18-001. 

44 
45  Grazioni  et  al.  (2015).  European  emissions  of  HCFC-22  based  on  eleven  years  of  high  frequency 
atmospheric measurements and a Bayesian inversion method. Atmospheric Environment 112:196-207. 
46  SKM Enviros (2012), Further Assessment of Policy Options for the Management and Destruction of 

Banks of ODS and F-Gases in the EU. Final Report. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ODS  banked  in  equipment  is  not  emitted  when  the  equipment  enters  the  waste  stream. 
Figure 7 shows the quantities that are potentially recoverable from equipment containing 
CFCs.Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Figure 7 – Quantity  of  CFCs  in  metric  tonnes  that  is  potentially  recoverable  from 
retired EU equipment at its end-Of-Life (2010-2050) 

ICF (2018) 

3.1.2 Implementation of the Regulation 

The EU-wide ODS  Licensing System,  the registration of laboratories, the quota system 
and  the  managing  of  exemptions  and  derogations  are  implemented  at  EU  level  by  the 
Commission. The EEA manages the annual reporting by companies. For Member States 
authorities the main implementation tasks relate to market surveillance, inspections and 
custom controls; issuance of penalties in cases of non-compliance; promoting recovery, 
reclamation  and  destruction;  reporting  on  halons  and  illegal  trade;  establishing 
qualifications for technicians; as well as granting production authorisations (the latter for 
a few Member States only). 

3.1.2.1 Implementation by Member States 

–  The scope of the tasks for Member States has been reduced considerably in recent 
years  as  the  number  of  undertakings  producing  and  using  ODS  has  decreased 
substantially  from  previous  Regulations.  Only  five  Member  States  still  have  ODS 
producers47  on  their  territory.  Similarly,  the  qualification  requirements  for  leakage 

47 

In total 15 producing companies some of which are producing only very small amounts. The handful 
of  larger  producers  are  large international  chemical  companies  whose  main  business  is  not  anymore 
linked to ODS production. 

19 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
checking for some equipment were already established by Member States previously and 
are  now  becoming  less  important48  considering  that  refrigeration,  air-conditioning  and 
heat-pump  equipment  may  no  longer  be  serviced  and  many  types  of  ODS-using 
equipment have reached their end of life.  

–  There  have  not  been  major  implementation  deficiencies  by  Member  States  since 
2010.  Only  one  infringement  case  was  launched  against  one  Member  State  in  2013 
concerning  a  late  notification  on  penalty  rules.  Awareness  of  the  Regulation’s 
requirements among the remaining users of ODS is generally high according to Member 
States  authorities  as  well  as  undertakings.  This  may  be  somewhat  less  the  case  for  the 
multitude of laboratory users according to one competent authority (Ramboll, 2019), but 
these entities usually use only very small amounts of ODS.  

–  Environmental  inspections  on  entities  handling  ODS  were  most  frequently 
identified  as  important  enforcement  activities  by  competent  authorities,  besides 
custom controls. Most Member States use a risk-based approach in their inspection and 
enforcement activities. The obligatory equipment logbook and labelling are an important 
source  of  information  that  are  good  starting  points  for  the  detection  of  infringements, 
according  to  one  competent  authority  (Ramboll,  2019).  Challenges  encountered  by 
Member  States  with  respect  to  enforcement  are  mainly  a  lack  of  resources,  but  also 
various  complications  related  to  the  identification  of  (equipment  with)  ODS  and  being 
able  to  distinguish  between  legal  and  illegal  uses  and  trade.  Many  Member  States 
reported that illegal activities were identified in 2010-2017 and sanctioned according to 
national  legislation.  It  was  difficult  to  obtain  more  details  from  Member  States  despite 
solicitations to provide more information on the extent of (non-) compliance. This is in 
particular  the  case  for  federal  Member  States,  as  one  such  country  explained  in  the 
stakeholder meeting (see also  Annex  II), as most infringements  result in  administrative 
fines that are not tracked in any way. According to the Member States, the actual number 
of criminal prosecutions related to breaches of the Regulation appears rather limited.  

–  Many  Member  States  rely  to  a  large  degree  on  measures  introduced  under  the 
existing waste legislation, partly even before the Regulation applied, as regards the 
promotion  of  recovery,  recycling,  reclamation  and  destruction  of  ODS.  Member 
States  are  required  to  “encourage”  extended  producer  responsibility  by  the  Regulation. 
There  are  also  good  synergies  with  measures  on  end-of-life  treatment  under  the  F-gas 
Regulation,  which  affects  the  same  sectors.  There  is  not,  however,  any  mandatory 
requirement in the Waste Framework Directive and related Directives for Member States 
to extend responsibility of used ODS refrigerants to the producer and, as a result, only a 
few  Member  States  have  done  so  (e.g.  DE,  FR).  There  are  also  good  synergies  with 
measures  on  end-of-life  treatment  under  the  Fgas  Regulation,  which  affects  the  same 
sectors. Some countries reported further measures49: 

–  Databases  on  leakage  checks  and  operators  of  ODS-containing  equipment  enabling 
the  calculation  of  emissions  and  keeping  track  of  halons  and  other  stocks  (PL)  and 
undertakings’ record keeping (EE); 

–  Charges for ODS emissions (PL) and taxes for ODS imports (DK);  

48  However very similar skills continue to be needed for handling such equipment with HFCs, which is 

regulated by the Fgas Regulation. 

49 

In addition, a previous expert study from 2012 collected national measures on waste management of 
ODS. See SKM Enviros (2012) 

20 

 
 
                                                 
–  Additional  fee  by  installers  and  refrigerant  wholesalers  to  cover  expenses  of 

destruction (DK); 

–  Establishment of facilities for the collection, handling and (in some cases) destruction 
of  used  ODS  (either  publicly  financed  (EE,  PL,  HR)  or  set  up  with  public  support 
schemes (CZ, NL) and now financed by the private sector (NL); and 

–  Information provision to users on proper disposal (DE, EE). 

–  Reclamation and destruction facilities are unevenly distributed in the EU. In 2010, 
approximately  55  commercial  reclamation  facilities  and  23  commercial  destruction 
facilities  were  spread  out  across  17  and  11  Member  States,  respectively.50  Since 
collection  schemes  are  implemented  at  national  and  lower  levels,  not  being  able  to 
destroy in the same country where collection takes place can pose significant barriers to 
the destruction obligation. 

–  Member States report annually to the Commission on quantities on halons installed, 
used and stored for  remaining uses, measures  taken to  reduce their emissions and an 
estimate of such emissions, and progress in evaluating and using adequate alternatives.  

4. METHOD 

4.1 Short description of methodology 

A lot of data, in particular as regards effectiveness and benefits, are available from e.g. 
EEA  reports  on  ODS  (2011-2017),  Montreal  Protocol  technical  bodies  and  scientific 
literature. The Commission was assisted by an external consortium of experts that carried 
out the analysis of available data, background documents and literature including data on 
alternatives;  the  stakeholder  consultations;  a  standard  cost  model-based  assessment  of 
costs of the Regulation together with a counterfactual analysis; and a legal analysis of the 
Regulation  and  related  legislation.  The  work  was  overseen  by  a  Commission  inter-
service group (ISG).51 

4.1.1 Stakeholder consultations 

The stakeholders concerned by the Regulation are diverse52, in terms of e.g. size of the 
company,  position  in  the  value  chain  and  the  sector  they  are  active  in.  To  derive 
sufficient  and  pertinent 
the  open  stakeholder  consultation  was 
complemented  by  surveys  of  targeted  stakeholders  (both  undertakings  and  competent 
authorities), followed by targeted detailed interviews on specific topics (in particular as 
regards  efficiency).  Finally,  a  stakeholder  workshop  to  validate  the  findings  was  held. 
Separate reports on the consultation of undertakings, competent authorities and the online 
public consultation including details on design and results are available.53 Unless quoted 

information, 

50 

ICF  International,  Identifying  and  Assessing  Policy  Options  for  Promoting  the  Recovery  and 
Destruction of ODS (ODS) and Certain Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (F-Gases) Banked in Products 
and Equipment (May 2010), p. 31. 

51  This  staff  working  document  and  the  original  external  study  are  however  based  on  a  different 

intervention logic. Please see also Annex I, point 5 for more explanation. 

52  But becoming less in numbers as the phase-out in many sectors has been achieved or is progressing 
53  See Appendixes 4.1, 4.2 and 5 to the support study for this evaluation (Ramboll, 2019). 

21 

 
 
                                                 
otherwise,  stakeholder  positions  presented  in  this  document  are  taken  from  these 
consultations. Annex II provides a synthesis report of the stakeholder consultations. 

4.1.2 Cost assessments 

The  assessment  of  the  costs  of  complying  with  the  Regulation  is  based  on,  in  total,  27 
interviews to collect cost information from national competent authorities (7 interviews) 
and  commercial  undertakings  (20  interviews).  An  effort  was  made  to  ensure  a 
representative  sample  by  targeting  “typical”,  rather  than  “exceptional”  organisations, 
based  on  the  knowledge  of  the  concerned  sectors  and  relevant  stakeholders.  Based  on 
questionnaires,  undertakings  and  administrations  provided  for  each  measure  of  the 
Regulation, the extent of the cost of the Regulation in qualitative terms and, to the extent 
that the respondents were able to provide good estimates, also in quantitative terms, i.e. 
either the time required per action or monetary cost per equipment was collected.  

Labour  cost  data  for  the  Commission  in  terms  of  time  (days)  were  determined  on  the 
basis of estimates of the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees assigned to the 
tasks related to the Regulation. Further costs were identified that relate specifically to the 
setting  up  and  running  of  the  IT  system  and  the  purchasing  of  external  services. 
Personnel  costs  and  IT  costs  required  for  company  reporting  activities  were  obtained 
from the EEA by personal communication.  

In  addition,  a  counterfactual  analysis  focusing  on  the  situation  where  the  Montreal 
Protocol would have been implemented at the level of the 28 individual Member States, 
without  the  provisions  of  an  EU-wide  Regulation,  was  costed.  As  explained  in  section 
5.5.1, this is a purely hypothetical scenario unlikely to be suited to the need for the EU to 
comply  jointly  with  the  Montreal  Protocol  (REIO  clause;  see  section  2.1.2)  nor  the 
functioning of the internal market. This is therefore simply used as a point of comparison 
in the analysis to demonstrate the added value of EU-level legislation.  

Annex III describes the detailed methodology for deriving costs. 

4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings 

Generally, a large amount of background data is available, including in the public domain 
(see  Annex  III).  These  data  were  complemented  by  large  amounts  of  information 
provided by undertakings and authorities in the different consultations as regards all the 
criteria  of  the  evaluation  (Annex  II).  The  data  basis  for  most  evaluation  criteria  is 
therefore rather good. Some findings as regards the costing of the different measures of 
the Regulation are however subject to some limitations as follows. 

–  The  survey  information  from  open  and  targeted  consultations  provided  mostly 
qualitative  information  on  costs.  For  this  reason,  follow-up  interviews  with 
undertakings  and  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  directly  requested 
quantified cost data. 

–  On  individual  measures,  stakeholders  (and  authorities)  were  not  always  able  to 
provide this information in quantitative terms. This is the case for various reasons, i.e. 
because  these  costs  were  not  systematically  recorded,  incurred  mostly  in  the  past 
(phase-outs),  were  small  compared  to  overall  expenditure  or  could  not  be  separated 
from  other  costs  e.g.  stemming  from  related  legislation54.  In  these  cases,  qualitative 

54 

e.g. Industrial Emissions Directive, Waste Legislation etc. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
assessments are given wherever possible, building on the appreciation of stakeholders 
in the consultations on a scale of 1 (no costs) to 5 (very high costs).  

–  It was generally easier for the respondents to put a price on administrative measures of 
the  Regulation,  whereas  most  found  it  very  difficult  to  do  the  same  for  compliance 
measures  (e.g.  phase-out  schedules,  national  inspection  obligations,  technical 
requirements  for  destruction,  technical  requirements  for  leakage  and  emission 
control). 

–  In addition,  there are inherent  differences in  the situation between different  Member 
States.  The  Member  States  giving  quantitative  data  included  the  largest  countries 
where  most  of  the  affected  industry  resides.  Therefore,  some  of  the  costs  for 
responsible  authorities  extrapolated  to  the  EU  level  may  have  actually  been 
overestimated. 

–  The  affected  companies  are  diverse  and  operate  in  different  sectors.  A  number  of 
measures  apply  only  to  some  undertakings  or  some  sectors.  Given  the  limited  data 
basis  for  deriving  quantitative  costs,  the  figures  presented  on  costs  are  based  on 
average  or  median  costs  from  a  small  sample  of  selected  respondents  in  each  case. 
The  cost  estimations  for  undertakings  therefore  present  a  range  rather  than  absolute 
costs.  Stakeholders  in  the  workshop  did  not  challenge  any  of  the  presented  cost 
figures.55 

5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1 Effectiveness  

5.1.1  To what extent have the (general) objectives56 been achieved? 

The  analysis  presented  in  this  section  shows  that  the  Regulation  has  been  effective  in 
achieving its objectives. 

5.1.1.1 Compliance with international obligations 

The EU fully complies with its core obligations under the Montreal Protocol. Article 
8 of the Montreal Protocol provides for non-compliance procedures and mechanisms. It 
mandates  a  special  Implementation  Committee  to  deal  with  cases  of  non-compliance. 
This Committee has not established any cases of non-compliance affecting the EU and 
its Member States in the period 2010-2017. The EU complied with the core obligations 
in the following way:  

–  ODS  Consumption  phase-out:  As  can  be  seen  in  Figure 4,  the  EU  has  met  its 
obligations  on  consumption57  under  the  Montreal  Protocol  in  the  period  2010-2017, 
below  the  control  limits  set  (e.g.  dotted  line  in  figure)  and  generally  much  earlier  than 
required, as anticipated by the impact assessment (without further measures). 

55  With the exception of company reporting, for which one data point was challenged as unreasonable by 
a national authority. For this reason, the median value was used in this case rather than the average. 

56  The specific objectives are adressed in 5.1.3 
57   EU jointly complies on consumption, see section 2.1.2  

23 

 
 
                                                 
–  ODS  Production  phase-out:  The  Regulation  prescribes  the  phase-out  for  producing 
companies that allows Member States to comply with the Montreal Protocol.58 While all 
limits  were  complied  with,  France  in  2012  slightly  exceeded  its  annual  limit  of 
production of HCFCs, as the produced quantity was destroyed only in the following year 
(year’s end effect). The Parties to the Montreal Protocol recommended the monitoring of 
France’s progress in subsequent years, which did not lead to further action. 

–  ODS Reporting: All parameters relevant to EU consumption were reported yearly to the 
Montreal  Protocol’s  Ozone  Secretariat  based  on  annual  company  reporting  collected  in 
the EEA`s BDR for consumption. The production data is also collected in the BDR and 
submitted  to  the  Ozone  Secretariat,  but  the  production  data  must  be  confirmed  to  the 
Ozone  Secretariat  by  the  affected  Member  States  individually,  since  production 
compliance  is  established  at  country  level.  Five  EU  Member  States  (Hungary,  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Luxembourg  and  Romania)  exceeded  the  deadline  for  confirming  the 
submitted  production  data  (showing  their  production  was  zero),  and  there  were  some 
cases  of  ODS  stockpiling.  These  cases,  however,  did  not  result  in  any  formal  non-
compliance cases.  

–  A  fully  compliant  licensing  system  has  been  in  place.  This  system  was  established 

already under the previous Regulation. 

5.1.1.2 High level of protection of the ozone layer and avoidance of climate change 

The  Regulation  has  continued  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the 
environment in view of achieving a timely recovery of the ozone layer and limiting 
climate  change,  by  reducing  ODS  emissions.  For  ODS,  contrary  to  other  GHGs, 
emission data is not routinely assembled at European level, as these gases do not require 
emission reporting under the UNFCCC (nor under the Montreal Protocol), and  data are 
therefore  not  readily  available.  Nonetheless,  a  recent  scientific  article59  confirms  that 
emissions  of  HCFC-22,  the  most  common  HCFC  used  as  refrigerant,  are  indeed 
declining rapidly over Europe in line with previous estimations (Figure 8), while global 
emissions  of  this  substance  still  continue  to  rise.60  Two  scenarios  predict  a  continuing 
strong decline of HCFC-22, approaching zero after 2025 (Graziosi et al. (2015)). For the 
earlier  generation  of  ODS,  the  CFCs,  existing  data  on  CFC-11  (most  relevant  species) 
indicates that these emissions similarly continue to decline and that there appear to be no 
significant problems of emissions currently from remaining stocks or as untreated waste 
in old equipment that is landfilled in the EU.61  

58  Production compliance must not be achieved at EU level, but at Member State level (see section 2.1.2) 
59   Graziosi  et  al.  (2015).  European  emissions  of  HCFC-22  based  on  eleven  years  of  high  frequency 
atmospheric  measurements  and  a  Bayesian  inversion  method.  Atmospheric  Environment  112:  196-
207. 

60   e.g.  Reimann  et  al.  (2018).  Observing  the  atmospheric  evolution  of  ozone-depleting  substances. 

Comptes Rendus Geoscience 350 (7): 384-392. 

61   Montzka  (2018).  Presentation  at  side  event  by  Scientific  Assessment  Panel  of  Montreal  Protocol. 

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop30/presentations/Side%20events%20presentations/Montzka_MOP_Final_2post.pdf. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 8 – European62  emission  estimates  and  projections  for  HCFC-22,  the  most 
common HCFC used as refrigerant in the past [1000 metric tons per year] 

Graziosi et al., 2015 

The EU exceeds  all other developed countries  in reducing more quickly  and more 
substantially  the  consumption  of  ODS  controlled  by  the  Montreal  Protocol 
(Figure 9).  A  number  of  relevant  and  important  phase-out  obligations  for  different 
substances and uses exceed the international obligations, either by not being required at 
all by the Montreal Protocol or because their phase-out has been anticipated in the EU. 
The  EU  had  a  negative  Montreal  Protocol  consumption  in  each  year  since  2010  as  a 
result of the achieved HCFC phase-out, whereas all other developed countries had a zero 
or  positive  consumption  in  each  year.63  In  particular,  the  phase-out  of  HCFCs  for 
refrigeration  and  air  conditioning  was  completed  in  the  EU  in  2010,  while  other 
developed countries have until 2020 to do so, including the possibility to still use 0.5% of 
the baseline for specific purposes until 2030 (servicing tail).  

The EU has also phased out the import and export of equipment of HCFC equipment and 
limited until 2015 the use of recycled/reclaimed HCFCs for use in such equipment. The 
Montreal Protocol does not prescribe these measures. 

For  methyl  bromide,  the  EU  has  also  had  a  negative  consumption  in  each  year  since 
2010, whereas some other non-Article 5 countries (Australia, Canada and the USA until 
recently) had a positive consumption in each year and needed to apply for exemptions for 
this  use  under  the  Montreal  Protocol.  In  addition,  specific  dates  were  set  in  the  EU, 
ranging from 2011 to 2040, by which halons, including non-virgin halons, may no longer 

62  More  precisely:  “European  geographic  domain”,  which  includes  also  non-EU  countries  such  as  e.g. 

Norway, Switzerland and Balkan countries 

63  Except Norway in 2012 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
be used in different equipment. Comparable requirements do not exist in other developed 
countries. 

Figure 9 – Montreal  Protocol  consumption  for  EU  and  other  non-Article  5  parties 
(i.e. developed countries) for 2010-2016. 

Data obtained from Ozone Secretariat (UN Environment) 

5.1.2  What  factors  had  a  positive  or  negative  influence  on  the  achievements  observed, 
and how? 

5.1.2.1 Internal factors (measures of the Regulation) 

In  the  public  consultation  87%  of  the  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  with  the 
statement,  that  the  Regulation  has  contributed  to  the  reduction  of  the  consumption  of 
ODS in the EU. 71% agreed with the statement that the Regulation’s requirements that 
go  beyond  the  core  Montreal  Protocol  requirements  have  led  to  a  more  effective 
reduction in the consumption of ODS. For every individual measure of the Regulation a 
majority of undertakings stated  that it was  effective in  controlling  ODS.  The phase-out 
schedules  (for  HCFCs  and  halons),  the  technical  requirements  for  reclamation  and 
destruction as well as leakage and emission controls were identified as the most effective 
measures. These results  did not  seem  to  greatly  depend on the sector or  the size of the 
undertaking as shown in Table 3 for registration requirements for laboratories, licensing 
requirements and reporting requirements.  

26 

 
 
 
 
Table  3.  Percentage  of  undertakings  (strongly)  agreeing  or  (strongly)  disagreeing 
with effectiveness of measures, by sector and size 

Sector/ Size 

Number* 

Registration 
requirements for 
laboratories 

Licensing 
requirements 

Reporting 
requirements 

%  
agree 

% 
disagree 

%  
agree 

% 
 disagree 

%  
agree 

% 
disagree 

96 

82% 

5% 

68% 

18% 

68% 

19% 

100 

117 

59 

n.a. 

n.a. 

55% 

71% 

82% 

7% 

3% 

79% 

95% 

7% 

3% 

0% 

57% 

11% 

n.a. 

71% 

n.a. 

0% 

Chemical 
industry 

Aviation 

Laboratories 

Pharmaceutical 
industry 

SMEs 

214 

75% 

8% 

63% 

7% 

73% 

8% 

* Total number of undertakings in the category. Please note that the numbers to which a measure applies,  and 
on which the percentages are based, are always smaller. 

Responses from  competent authorities in Member States mirror these findings. While a 
majority viewed all measures as effective, the phase-outs of HCFCs, methyl bromide and 
halons,  national  inspections  and  the  registration  requirement  for  laboratories  were 
identified  as  most  effective  (at  90%  agreement).  For  measures  that  require  market 
surveillance  at  national  level,  such  as  labelling,  reclamation  requirements,  and  leakage 
control,  there  were  fewer  respondents  among  these  national  authorities  who  strongly 
agreed  on  their  effectiveness  (even  though  this  was  still  the  majority  view).64  Measures 
that require resources at EU level intervention but less resources at the national level, e.g. 
quota limitations, registration requirements for laboratories, and licensing  requirements, 
received  very  high  scores  from  national  authorities  regarding  effectiveness.  While  a 
majority also agreed that the Regulation ensures that ODS stocks are managed properly, 
a few authorities thought that the Regulation’s provisions on the management of stocks 
were  not  clear  enough,  and  thus  less  effective.  In  the  stakeholder  workshop,  several 
Member States emphasised that leakage control measures are very important and increase 
the awareness  of users  and  that  good  enforcement  is  key. One national  authority stated 
that the quota allocation system is unnecessary and ineffective (see also 5.3.4.3). 

5.1.2.2 External factors 

The role of external factors in achieving the objectives is less clear than it is for the 
measures of the Regulation itself. Only a small minority (16%) of undertakings thought 
external factors had led to a decrease/increase of ODS use, while most of them either did 
not  think that such external  factors had played a role or did  not  know. External  factors 
identified  as  relevant  were  first  and  foremost  the  general  economic  situation,  but  also 
other  sector-specific  requirement  and  legislation  such  as  International  Civil  Aviation 
Organization  (ICAO)  regulations  on  halons  and  factors  related  to  Research  and 
Development (R&D), like funding and priority setting. In the authorities survey, 43% of 
the respondents thought that also factors other than the Regulation ensured the reduction 
of the consumption of ODS in the EU. The most frequently identified factors were R&D 
funding,  other  EU  legislation  such  as  waste  and  the  Fgas  Regulation,  as  well  as 

64   This is probably also not very surprising if one considers that these measures are supporting measures 

whose purpose is to facilitate the enforcement of the main measures. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
awareness raising campaigns. In the public consultation, 48% agreed that external factors 
were (also) relevant. Respondents identified (in order of frequent mentioning) the timely 
availability  of  alternatives,  public  awareness,  other  legislation  such  as  ICAO  and 
involvement of local government as factors. 

5.1.3  What  have  been  the  most  prominent  qualitative  and  quantitative  effects  of  the 
Regulation  (in  line  with  the  specific  objectives)?  To  what  extent  can  these  effects  be 
credited to the Regulation? 

5.1.3.1 Ensuring the progress achieved and further reduction of ODS 

–  EU consumption levels as defined by the Montreal Protocol have essentially stayed 
at negative levels since 2010 (Figure 9). 22 (out of 23 responding) national authorities 
agreed  that  the  Regulation  ensured  the  reduced  production  and  consumption  of  these 
ODS in the period 2010-2017.65  

–  Use  of  methyl  bromide  for  pre-shipment  and  quarantine  purposes  has  been 
completely phased out following its 2010 prohibition except for possible derogations 
in  emergency  cases  (not  yet  used).  This  has  resulted  in  additional  savings  of  200  ODP 
tonnes a year since 2010, in line with expectations of the impact assessment.  

–  HCFC use66 in refrigeration has been eliminated. Further reductions in ODS use (ca. 
1,000 ODP tonnes) were achieved due to the 2015 prohibition on recycled and reclaimed 
HCFCs  (for  refrigeration).  A  few  derogations  were  granted  after  that  date  but  the  last 
derogations  expired  in  2018.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  sector  was  the  major 
application area of ODS in the past. 

–  Reaching  the  production  endpoint  for  HCFCs  required  by  the  Montreal  Protocol 
will in all likelihood be achieved this year (2019). EU ODS production for uses other 
than  feedstock  has  been  significantly  reduced  compared  to  the  period  before  2010 
(Figure 10), as a result of the production phase-out schedule and the linked prohibitions 
on  use  and  trade  of  ODS.  Production  continues  mostly  to  satisfy  feedstock  uses 
(including new ODS) which are exempted under the Montreal Protocol.  

65  The one disagreeing country added that they had achieved it earlier than required by the Regulation 
66 

Including the import/export of refrigeration equipment with ODS. 

28 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 10 – EU Production of ODS (only substances listed in Annex I) 

EEA Report on ODS (2018) 

5.1.3.2 Development and uptake of alternatives to further limit the use of ODS 

From 2010 onwards, and even though in many areas the low hanging fruits were picked 
by previous Regulations, further advances have been made in the development and use of 
suitable alternatives in the few remaining sectors of use. 

–  The  amounts  of  process  agents  employed  have  been  reduced  by  more  than  two 
thirds since 2010, reaching 324 metric tonnes in 2017. The 2017 emission levels of 4.1 
metric  tonnes  or  4.5  ODP  tonnes  (vs.  20  ODP  tonnes  forecasted  in  the  impact 
assessment) also confirm the progress made. Only five of the eight undertakings allowed 
to use ODS 2010 are still using ODS as process agents, but this change is likely to be a 
result of business decisions rather than the Regulation. The Montreal Protocol no longer 
exempts  some  application  areas  following  their  removal  from  Table  A  of  Decision 
XXIX/7 of the Parties in 2017, after their elimination in the EU and elsewhere.67 Today 
the  process  agent  use  in  the  EU  is  well  below  the  above-mentioned  limit  decided  by 
Parties to  the  Montreal  Protocol  (see Figure 11)  and further reductions are expected, as 
the  remaining  uses  are  likely  to  be  phased  out  once  these  old  installations  are 
modernised.  So  while  the  limit set  out  in  the  Commission  Decision  2010/372/EU  from 
2010 (as amended) is safeguarding compliance with the Montreal Protocol, it is no longer 
an effective driver for further reductions. The list of permitted uses may need updating as 
one of the installations has started to adopt an alternative. 

67 

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/cop11-mop29/report/English/COP-11-7-MOP-29-8E.pdf  

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 11 – Process agents use in EU from 2010 – 2017 (in metric tonnes) 

Calculated using data from EEA reports 2011-2018. 2014 data was estimated by interpolation. 
Ramboll (2019) 

̶  The Regulation incentivised the search for alternatives to halons. For halons, today’s 
exempted uses are limited to specialised areas such as fire fighting in civil aircraft and for 
military uses. The switch to alternatives in these specific applications is on going, as the 
use  of  reclaimed  halons  for  these  uses  is  gradually  phased  out  in  the  EU  until  2040.68 
Several  available  alternatives  could  be  identified53,  with  some  options  are  currently 
already in use within the EU. These include portable systems or hand-held devices e.g. at 
airfields and airports, but also replacements in military ground vehicles. Some developed 
alternative options, however, appear to pose difficulties such as requiring major technical 
modifications  to  the  equipment  or  posing  weight  constraints,  according  to  some  of  the 
undertakings affected. The installed base and stocks of halons and their emissions have 
all  declined between 2010 and 2016 (Table 4),  but the used amounts  have increased to 
the  level  forecasted  by  the  impact  assessment  (i.e.  “500  ODP  tonnes”).  A  reduction  of 
halon use to zero by 2030, as theoretically considered by the impact assessment69, is not 
realistic  as  the  adopted  phase-out  schedule  extends  to  2040.  In  the  view  of  several 
national  authorities,  the  Regulation's  phase-out  dates  have  (strongly)  pushed  the  search 
for  halon  replacements  in  fire-fighting  equipment  in  civil  aviation  and  moved  forward 
discussions at ICAO to introduce globally applicable phase-out dates.  

68   The Montreal Protocol only prohibits the production and consumption of virgin halons, while recycled 

and reclaimed halons may be used. 

69  The  impact  assessment  did  not  carry  out  a  detailed  analysis  of  available  technology  choices.  The 
phase-out schedule was established by a subsequent implementing act after the relevant consultations.  

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 4. EU total quantities of halons, available, used and lost, for 2010 and 2016 

2010 

2016 

Total installed in equipment 

968 (8408) 

867 (7576) 

Total newly used  

Total emitted 

47 (409) 

12 (107) 

59 (519) 

8 (71) 

Total stored for future use 

508 (4407) 

493 (4306) 

Data in metric tonnes (ODP tonnes in parenthesis) 

Source: Data submitted by Member States. Figure for 2010 does not include Croatia (not a Member State at the 
time), Austria and Latvia (no data available). 

–  For laboratory uses, steady progress on alternatives is being made. The amounts for 
laboratory use are very small in total and have further decreased, partly as a result of the 
introduction of alternatives and partly due to new laboratory methods and new standards 
for  testing  and  laboratory  procedures.  36%  (140  respondents)  of  laboratories  indicated 
they  reduced  the  amount  involved  in  their  activities  in  the  period  2010-2017. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 291/2011 provided more clarity to users 
by listing the uses where ODS are allowed (due to a perceived lack of alternatives) and 
uses where ODS are not allowed (as suitable alternatives are available).70 This may have 
contributed  to  avoiding  unnecessary  and  prohibited  use  of  ODS.  In  their  most  recent 
publication on laboratory and analytical uses, the Technology and Economic Assessment 
Panel  (TEAP)71  invites  Parties  to  the  Montreal  Protocol  to  consider  removing  further 
uses  due  to  the  availability  of  alternative  options.  The  EU  has  not  updated  the  list  of 
prohibited uses because the use of ODS for laboratory and analytical purposes is already 
prohibited  in  the  EU,  if  there  is  a  technically  and  economically  feasible  alternative  to 
using  ODS.  As  actual  consumption  is  below  1  ODP  tonne,  the  quota  limitation  of 
producing  and  importing  up  to  110  ODP  tonnes per  year  (while  the  impact  assessment 
had expected needed quantities of up to 200 ODP) cannot be seen as effective in reducing 
and eliminating this use.  

–  For feedstock uses, some alternatives have become available for a limited number of 
different  processes.  Replacing  feedstock  use  is  very  difficult,  as  this  would  require 
finding  other,  economical,  chemical  production  pathways  for  a  number  of  important 
products.72  A  complete  replacement  of  feedstock  use  is  therefore  not  realistic.  The 
Regulation  does  not  prohibit  the  use  of  ODS,  even  in  cases  where  alternatives  are 
available,  but  administrative  hurdles  to  the  use  of  ODS  exist  which  may  provide  an 
incentive  for  innovation  (e.g.  avoiding  the  need  of  applying  for  licenses  or  quotas  or 
reporting on use).  

5.1.3.3 Emission prevention and management of stocks 

Emission levels of the remaining uses of ODS in the EU are low.  

70  Commission Regulation (EU) No 291/2011 
71  UNEP (2018). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). September 2018. 

Volume 4, Response to Decision XXVI/5(2) on Laboratory and Analytical Uses. 

72  Miller,  M.  and  Batchelor  T.  (2012).  Information  Paper  on  Feedstock  Uses  of  Ozone-Depleting 

Substances. Touchdown Consulting, December 2012. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
̶  The chemical  industry appears  to have  made  improvements of emission control  in 
the  production  process.  The  Regulation  prescribes  that  all  precautionary  measures 
practicable  must  be  taken  to  prevent  and  minimise  leakages  and  emissions  (Article 
23(5)).  This  provision  is  burdensome  to  enforce  even  though  synergies  with  industrial 
emission  policies  and  inspections  carried  out  in  that  context  exist  (see  section  5.3.4.6). 
Feedstock use of ODS represents the majority of current production, trade and use, but is 
mostly non-emissive if good production standards are adhered to.73 Only 0.03% of ODS 
used  as  feedstocks  were  emitted  in  2017,  i.e.  26  ODP  tonnes,  but  emission  rates  can 
differ  significantly  between  undertakings  (EEA  Report  on  ODS,  2018).Error!  Bookmark  not 
defined.  Current  emission  rates  are  much  lower  than  the  one  assumed  in  the  impact 
assessment  (1%)  which  largely  explains  why  emissions  are  so  much  lower  than 
anticipated  (i.e.  600  ODP  tonnes).  Emissions  from  new  ODS  used  as  feedstocks  have 
improved to levels of 0.012% recently (2017), while emissions of ODS used as process 
agents are significantly larger than those of feedstocks, at 1.28% (2017) (EEA Report on 
ODS, 2018).Error! Bookmark not defined. In 2011 and 2012, the latter still exceeded the ceiling 
imposed by the Regulation.  This  is  no longer the case  since 2014  and undertakings  are 
now staying well below the limit (16.1 metric tonnes74), as only 4.1 metric tonnes (or 4.5 
ODP tonnes) were emitted recently (EEA Report on ODS, 2018).Error!  Bookmark  not  defined. 
This exceeded expectations of emission below 20 ODP tonnes in the impact assessment.  

̶  Remaining banks of ODS from refrigeration and air conditioning applications have 
reduced.  Banks  from  foams  have  long  lifetimes  resulting  in  stable  emissions. 
Emissions from equipment occur mostly during the use phase and at the end-of-life of the 
equipment when it becomes waste. For the use phase it is very difficult  to measure the 
effectiveness  of  national  measures  directly  as  it  involves  a  high  number  of  dispersed 
equipment.  The  importance  of  good  qualifications  of  technicians  and  their  certification 
was highlighted by some national authorities and undertakings, a measure that has shown 
its merits and is mirrored in the F-gas Regulation (as F-gases replaced many ODS in the 
same type of equipment). The servicing of refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump 
equipment  with  HCFCs  is  prohibited  since  2015,  meaning  that  the  end-of-life  phase  is 
becoming  more  important  to  emission  prevention.  National  measures  to  promote 
recovery,  recycling,  reclamation  and  destruction  of  ODS  have  resulted  in  a  number  of 
different  approaches  including  at  sub-national  levels  (see  3.1.2.1).  There  are  strong 
overlaps  with  waste  treatment  policies,  which  range  from  user  awareness  to  collection 
incentives  to  legal  obligations.  Authorities  see  the  WEEE  Regulation  as  an  important 
driver for the recovery of refrigeration equipment (SKM Enviros, 2012).Error! Bookmark not 
defined.  The  effectiveness  of  addressing  ODS  contained  in  foams  is  much  lower,  since 
recovery  is  often  difficult  and  costly.  No  waste  measure  for  foam  provides  an  average 
abatement  cost  lower  than  €50  per  tonne  CO2  abated  for  the  whole  period  from  2012-
2050  (SKM  Enviros,  2012).  Construction  foams  offer  the  most  effective  options  for 
effective treatment because of the volumes involved, but in practice there is very little, if 
any,  recovery  of  ODS  from  construction  foam  applications  at  the  time  of  demolition 
(SKM  Enviros,  2012).  Due  to  the  high  costs  involved,  the  Regulation's  obligation  to 
recover only if technically and economically feasible is not effective. It is therefore likely 

73  Despite the low amounts of emissions from feedstock use it must be kept in mind that falsely declaring 
prohibited uses of ODS as feedstocks (or other exempted uses) is a possible way of circumventing the 
Regulation, which is a relevant concern due to the high amounts of substances still used in this way. 
74  Article 8(4) of the Regulation gives a limit of 17 metric tonnes. Commission Implementing Decision 
2014/8/EU of 10 October 2013 established the limit of 16.1 metric tonnes in its confidential annex. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
that emissions from foam banks will continue at relatively constant rates for the next two 
decades  (Figure 12),  at  about  6,000  ODP  tonnes  per  year  (SKM  Enviros,  2012). 
However,  recent  measurements  have  not  shown  increased  concentrations  of  ODS  over 
the  EU  that  would  be  an  indication  of  increased  losses  from  banks  such  as  ageing 
equipment or from equipment in landfills75. 

Figure 12 – Estimated future emissions from banks in ODP tonnes  

Blue:  Emissions  at  beginning  of  operational  life  of  equipment  (BoL);  Red:  Emissions  during  use  phase; 
Purple:  Emissions  during  end-of-life  (EoL);  Grey:  Estimated  abated  emissions  (through  Collection  & 
Destruction) 

SKM Enviros (2012)  

̶  No clear trend for ODS destruction is apparent for the last decade, but the amounts 
destroyed  (6,000-10,000  ODP  tonnes)  are  relatively  significant  compared  to  the 
(negative)  EU  consumption  (Figure 15).  The  amounts  destroyed  are  mainly  from 
unintentionally76  produced  CTC  that  are  subsequently  destroyed,  rather  than  from 
recovered amounts from equipment (EEA Report on ODS, 2018).Error!  Bookmark  not  defined. 
Destruction  infrastructure  is  limited  to  some  Member  States  (15)  and  therefore  poses  a 
limitation to effective implementation. Excluding CTC destruction, the highest amounts 
destroyed  in  ODP  tonnes  were  in  Germany,  France,  Sweden  and  Denmark.  These 
destroyed  substances  are  mostly  CFCs.  In  the  Netherlands  relatively  high  amounts  of 
HCFCs are destroyed, which may be an indication of an efficient recovery scheme (see 
3.1.2.1).  Ca.  1600  metric  tonnes  in  total  of  CFCs  and  HCFCs  were  destroyed  in  2017, 
which is up to 10% of the equipment entering the waste stream.77 

75  Montzka  (2018).  Presentation  at  side  event  by  Scientific  Assessment  Panel  of  Montreal  Protocol. 

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop30/presentations/Side%20events%20presentations/Montzka_MOP_Final_2post.pdf. 

76 

i.e.  produced  in  a  chemical  synthesis  where  the  main  targeted  product  was  another  chemical  (“by-
production”). 

77  Most  of  which  is  however  composed  of  foams  that  pose  technical  and  cost  challenges  to  efficient 

collection and destruction. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 13 – Trends in the destruction of ODS in the EU 

EEA (2018) Report on ODS 

5.1.3.4 Identifying new threats  

The monitoring of uses not covered by the phase-out obligations under the Montreal 
Protocol  and  of  new  substances  has  allowed  to  follow  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Regulation`s  measures.  The  implementation  of  the  Regulation  is  being  closely 
monitored in various ways that allow to keep track of the progress made in all relevant 
areas.  An  annual  public  report  on  ODS  is  published  by  the  European  Environment 
Agency  (EEA)  since  2011  on  the  basis  of  detailed  annual  company  reporting  required 
under  the  Regulation  (EEA  Reports  on  ODS,  2011-2018).  Each  year,  the  EEA  also 
publishes  a  performance  indicator  showing  the  progress  made  on  e.g.  reducing 
production  and  consumption  of  ODS.78  These  reports  substantiate  that  important 
quantities of ODS not falling under phase-out obligations are still traded and produced in 
the EU, underlining that controls remain important. The data for the new ODS show that 
they are mostly produced in the EU, at stable but relevant levels, and employed, almost 
exclusively,  as  feedstocks79  where  emission  rates  are  very  low  (EEA  Report  on  ODS, 
2018). Some stakeholders including authorities have requested that a group of new ODS, 
i.e.  the  unsaturated  HCFCs,  should  also  be  monitored  going  forward,  due  to  their 
growing use as alternatives to HFCs in a number of applications.80 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/production-and-consumption-of-ozone-2/assessment-3  

78 
79  Small amounts are also used as solvents (n-propyl bromide, methyl chloride) or are unintentional by-

production. 

80  This  was  challenged  by  other  stakeholders,  including  one  association  representing  gas  producers, 

equipment manufacturers and other companies. 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.1.3.5 Leading by example 

There are a number of ways in which ambitious EU ODS policies, and the Regulation in 
particular,  have  promoted  stronger  actions  worldwide  and  enabled  that  progressive 
policies are advanced under the Montreal Protocol. 

–  The  EU  has  concluded  or  is  currently  negotiating  a  number  of  trade  agreements 
with other countries81 that mutually encourage good implementation of the Vienna 
Convention and its Montreal  Protocol, as well as taking further steps to  ensure good 
protection  of  the  ozone  layer  and  related  environmental  issues,  in  particular  through 
fighting illegal trade.  

–  Ambitious phase-out schedules have incentivised global political discussions. The EU 
phase-out  of  ODS  much  ahead  of  its  Montreal  Protocol  obligations  was  facilitating 
consensus on accelerating the phase-out schedules for Montreal Protocol parties82. More 
recently, the complete phase-out of methyl bromide for QPS uses in the EU has enabled 
the  EU  in  meetings  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  to  strongly  push  for  reduced  exempted 
amounts by other countries such as Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Mexico and the 
US, which has contributed to a gradual elimination of these amounts. Similarly, the EU 
phase-out schedule for halons has influenced the international discussions under ICAO to 
move forward and set global end dates for some of the applications using halons.  

–  Alternatives  to  process  agents  and  laboratory  uses  continue  to  be  developed  and 
used, and thus become available also to other Parties. The exempted uses for specific 
applications are continuously reduced under the Montreal Protocol  due to technological 
progress.  

–  The  obligatory  leakage  checks  and  training  for  technicians  developed  under  the 
ODS Regulation and the Fgas Regulation are “exported” all over the world as best 
practice for handling of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, using ODS and the 
replacement  HFC  substances.  AREA,  the  EU’s  association  of  service  technicians,  has 
cooperated with the implementing agencies UNEP Ozone Action, UNIDO and UNDP to 
train  technicians  in  developing  countries.83  The  LIFE-project  “Real  Alternatives” 
provides  free  online  courses  in  many  different  languages  for  that  purpose  (including 
Turkish and Russian as non-EU languages).84  

–  Good  enforcement  at  home  enables  the  EU  to  be  a  credible  advocate  for  stricter 
rules  elsewhere  in  the  world.  The  EU’s  negotiation  position  is  strengthened  by  its 
stringent domestic rules and control and can be leveraged to raise the impact of the global 
effort  of  reducing  the  ozone  hole  and  climate  effects  of  ODS.  Representatives  of  the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  regularly  participate  in  regional  network  meetings 

81 

e.g. explicit reference to the Montreal Protocol in trade agreement with Mexico; explicit reference also 
in  agreements  under  negotiation  with  Australia/NZ,  Chile,  Indonesia,  MERCOSUR  and  Tunisia; 
general reference to cooperation on multilateral environmental agreements in CETA (Canada), Japan, 
Singapore and Vietnam. Most recently, a reference to a strong commitment to the Montreal Protocol 
implementation in the joint EU-China summit statement, 9 April 2019.  

82  Put in place by Decision XIX/6 of the Montreal Protocol in 2007.  
83 
84  www.realalternatives.eu 

http://area-eur.be/sites/default/files/2017-09/India-EU%20Summit%202017%20-%20AREA%20speech_0.pdf 

35 

 
 
                                                 
organised by UN Environment for National Ozone Units (NOUs)85 in order to share the 
EU’s experience in implementing its domestic measures as best practice examples. 

5.1.3.6 Preventing and detecting illegal trade 

̶  The  ODS  Licensing  System  has  enabled  the  exchange  of  relevant  information 
submitted  in  the  licensing  process  very  efficiently  with  other  countries  and 
prevented  illegal  trade.  Non-EU  countries  are  able  to  register  in  the  EU’s  system  to 
facilitate  this  exchange.  This  led  to  a  more  efficient  participation  by  the  EU  in  the 
voluntary iPIC (informal Prior Informed Consent) system established under the Montreal 
Protocol.86  In  the  period  2010-2017  there  have  been  485  iPIC  request  involving  EU 
companies  (424  made  by  EU)  and  total  prevented  cases  of  illegal  trade  using  the  iPIC 
amounted  to  162.  The  existence  of  a  licensing  system  has  also  facilitated  follow-up 
action by Member States on illegal  trade. Most  recently87, Spanish  authorities, together 
with EUROPOL and the French Gendarmerie, have caught a Spanish company illegally 
exporting  HCFCs  without  a  license.  For  these  efforts,  the  Commission  and  Member 
States  received  the  Ozone  Protection  Award  for  Customs  and  Enforcement  Officers  by 
United  Nations  Environment  Programme’s  Regional  Ozone  Network  for  Europe  and 
Central  Asia  several  times  in  recent  years  in  recognition  of  the  strong  commitment  to 
address illegal trade.88  

–  Illegal  trade  activities  via  exempted  uses  appear  not  to  result  in  significant 
circumvention  of  the  Regulation.  One  way  of  circumventing  the  Regulation  is  to 
fraudulently  declare  ODS  as  an  exempted  use,  while  the  actual  use  falls  under  a 
prohibition. This concern may be most relevant  for feedstock use, as the quantities still 
used today in this way are much larger than for any other uses. One such case is currently 
being  investigated  where  methyl  bromide  was  declared  as  feedstock  use  but  may  have 
actually  been  used  for  a  prohibited  use  such  as  fumigation.  To  determine  if  there  were 
indications  of  illegal  trade,  amounts  reported  by  feedstock  users  were  compared  to 
amounts  reported  by  feedstock  producers  and  importers.  Stock  changes89  could  largely 
explain  any  discrepancies  found,  so  there  were  no  concrete  indications  in  2017  that 
significant amounts are used illegally in this way (EEA Report, 2018).  

5.1.3.7 Effectiveness of additional measures introduced in 2009 

The  impact  assessment  expected  only  very  modest  emission  savings  to  result  from 
simplification  of  the  Regulation.90  Strengthening  the  compliance  with  the  Montreal 

85  The NOUs are the  government  units in developing countries that are  responsible  for  managing their 

national programmes to comply with the Montreal Protocol.  

http://unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7628-e-iPIC_Supporting_compliance_through_prevention_of_illegal_and_unwanted_trade.pdf  

86 
87  EUROPOL press release 5 April 2019:  

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/how-company-earned-to-€1-million-illegally-trading-ten-tons-of-ozone-depleting-substances  
88  See  e.g.  OzoNews  (2016),  ECA  Customs  Cooperation  Meeting  and  Network  Meeting,  Ashgabat, 
Turkmenistan,  24-27  May  2016  and  ECA  Ozone  Protection  Award  for  Custom  &  Enforcement 
Officers 
from: 
http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/nonmmcfiles/OzoNews-VolXVI-15%20JUNE%202016.pdf  

edition).  OzoNews,  Vol.  XVI, 

2016.  Retrieved 

June 

(4th 

15 

89  Unexplained  higher  use  was  found  in  small  quantities  for  methyl  bromide  (40  ODP  tonnes)  and 
HCFCs  (6  ODP  tonnes).  For  CTC  a  large  discrepancy  was  explained  by  incorrect  reporting  by  one 
company. 

90  The  only  significant  indirect  emission  savings  from  simplification  were  assumed  to  result  from 
removing the possibility to use a special custom procedure for HCFCs and MB (“inward processing & 

36 

 
 
                                                 
 
protocol was seen as important for saving emissions, but the impact assessment did not 
provide quantitative data. While a direct comparison is therefore difficult, it is clear that 
the  extended  licensing  system  and  labelling,  stronger  inspection  provisions  and  closer 
monitoring/limiting  of  exports  as  well  as  trade  in  products  and  equipment  all  have 
contributed  to  a  good  enforcement  of  the  rules  and  control  of  illegal  trade.  As  regards 
measures that aimed at addressing future challenges, the emission savings of prohibiting 
methyl bromide QPS uses have been achieved (200 ODP tonnes per  year). The highest 
savings were expected from limiting emissions of ODS banks in products and equipment, 
but  these  are  to  a  large  degree  a  result  of  synergies  with  EU  waste  legislation  and 
national  measures,  rather  than  the  Regulation  itself.  While  emissions  from  HCFC  and 
CFC banks in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment are reducing quickly, this is 
not so for foams where effective measures are often prohibitively costly. Finally, 0 to 500 
ODP  tonnes  were  expected  to  be  saved  from  monitoring  new  ODS  and  limiting  halon 
1202  uses91.  The  higher  end  of  these  savings  was  expected  if  any  of  these  substances 
were  produced  in  large  quantities  and/or  represented  a  significant  threat  and  where  the 
Regulation would thus help to restrict their use. As such a significant threat has not  yet 
been  identified,  it  is  not  apparent  that  these  measures  have  indeed  resulted  in  high 
emission  savings,  in  particular  as  the  new  ODS  continue  to  be  produced  at  stable  to 
slightly increased levels.  

5.2 RELEVANCE 

5.2.1 To what extent is the intervention still relevant? 

The intervention remains relevant and action from the EU is needed.  

–  The  Montreal  Protocol  (and  the  Vienna  Convention)  will  continue  to  impose  the 
need to regulate ODS and related environmental issues on the EU and its Member 
States. The Regulation ensures that these obligations can be met. 

–  Continued action will be necessary for the next decades in order to ensure the EU’s 
contribution to protect the ozone layer, as some ODS are still in use within the EU 
(Figure 5)  and  the  credible  risk  of  redeployment  of  ODS  in  case  of  the  absence  of 
prohibitions  to  do  so.  The  modelled  recovery  of  the  ozone  hole  (see  5.3.1.1)  assumes 
that all parties, including the EU, will comply fully with the obligations of the Montreal 
Protocol, while any backsliding could lead to serious delays (SAP, 2018). Furthermore, 
recent studies have indicated that some unregulated uses of ODS or illegal uses of ODS 
incentivised  by  cost  savings  may  be  leading  to  higher  concentration  levels  of  ODS.92,93 
These activities in East Asia threaten to delay ozone hole recovery by 7 to 20 years (SAP, 

relief”), thus closing a loophole that could reduce emissions in third countries. The impact assessment 
also  clarifies  however  that  these  savings  of  estimated  0  –  6500  ODP  tonnes  may  in  fact  not  be 
achieved due to possible relocation of the relevant activities to third countries. 

91  As well as potentially restricting the other substances monitored (i.e. those listed in Annex II B of the 
Regulation) should they be identified as posing a significant threat, in which case a regular procedure 
with scrutiny would allow them to be added to Annex IIA of the Regulation (and thus limit their use).  

92   Environmental  Investigation  Agency  (2018).  BLOWING  IT:  Illegal  Production  and  Use  of  Banned 

CFC-11 in China’s Foam Blowing Industry. Retrieved from:  
https://eia-global.org/reports/20180709-blowing-it-illegal-production-and-use-of-banned-cfc-11-in-chinas-foam-blowing-industry  

93   Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G. S., Yu, P., Ray, E., Portmann, R. W., Daniel, J. S., Elkins, J. W. (2018). An 
unexpected and persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11. Nature 557(7705), 
413-417.  

37 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
2018).  In addition,  new upcoming threats  to  the ozone layer may be identified, such as 
from  short-lived  ODS,  whose  impact  may  have  been  underestimated  in  the  past. 
Consequently, ODS, if unregulated, could be reintroduced into the market, in particular 
as they are legally produced and used in many developing countries until 2030 and the 
fact that illegal trade is still happening in the EU indicates that without the prohibitions 
and control measures in the Regulation, ODS would likely re-emerge.  

–  All  relevant  efforts  to  reduce  emissions  of  GHG  further  are  necessary  in  view  of 
achieving  the  target  of  limiting  global  warming  to  well  below  2  degrees  Celsius 
above  pre-industrial  levels  and  to  pursue  efforts  to  limit  the  temperature  increase 
even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius as agreed under the Paris Agreement. The removal 
of  ODS  from  the  atmosphere  is  greatly  contributing  to  climate  mitigation  efforts  (see 
5.3.1) and needs to be sustained, otherwise even more action would be needed in other 
sectors where it is likely to be less cost-effective. 

–  EU  action  on  ODS  has  relevance  in  other  regions  as  well.  The  Regulation  includes 
measures preventing illegal trade and supports efforts in developing countries to phase-
out  the  use  of  ODS.  A  number  of  multilateral  trade  agreements  that  the  EU  has 
concluded or is currently negotiating with other countries make explicit reference to the 
need to implement control measures on ODS including the importance of fighting illegal 
trade.81  

–  Exemptions in the Regulation continue to be relevant for a few sectors in light of the 
stable  demand  where  no  alternatives  exist.  While  the  general  approach  of  the 
intervention is to prohibit ODS, exemptions are specified for certain uses of substances 
where alternatives are not technically or economically feasible.  

5.2.2 How well is the Regulation adapted to technological and scientific developments? 

The Regulation has driven innovation and development of alternatives.  

–  Alternatives  to  ODS  still  continue  to  become  available  in  some  sectors  for  certain 
applications,  which  in  some  cases  is  seen  as  being  driven  by  the  Regulation  (e.g. 
halons), while this link is less clear for other uses (see 5.1.3.2). The remaining sectors of 
use are those where replacement is naturally the most difficult. 

–  Both  a  majority of  undertakings and  all  the competent authorities of the Member 
States  pointed  out  in  the  targeted  surveys  that  there  is  progress  in  finding 
alternatives  because  ODS  are  controlled  by  the  Regulation.94  A  third  of  the 
undertakings also indicated that they reduced the amount of ODS in their activities in the 
period  2010-2017  because  of  the  Regulation.  These  activities  included  substitution, 
process  changes  and  disposal  of  stocks  and  waste.  Other  respondents  indicated  that 
alternatives were available before but the Regulation forced their introduction. Some also 
saw  other  factors  such  as  other  legislation,  standards,  financial  advantages  or  risk  of 
halon shortages as important drivers. 

–  The  Regulation  with  its  general  prohibitions  for  using  ODS  takes  relevant 
technological  and  scientific  development  into  account,  not  least  by  combining  a 
system  of  general  exemptions  with  case-specific  derogations,    in  addition  to  giving  the 
Commission  the  power  to  adjust  the  Regulation  under  specific  circumstances. 
Derogations are available for emergencies or for particular uses of defined substances. In 
total, only eight derogations were applied for and granted from 2010 to 2017. This low 

94  48% of undertakings agreed, while only 2% disagreed; responding Member States were 23. 

38 

 
 
                                                 
number indicates that the  prohibitions  in  the  Regulation  are  generally quite  appropriate 
and  do  not  cause  unnecessary  burden  or  costs.  Since  2014  there  has  not  been  a  new 
derogation decision in any sector, and the last derogations expired at the end of 2018. It 
appears that derogations may not be needed for HCFCs any longer, but may continue to 
be relevant for halon applications in commercial aircraft as some prohibition dates lie in 
the  future.95  In  any  event,  the  Commission  would only  grant  such  a  derogation  in  duly 
justified cases. Also, the Regulation offers the possibility to amend it via the regulatory 
procedure  with  scrutiny,  e.g.  to  introduce  endpoints  regarding  the  remaining  uses  of 
halons,  set  the  quota  limits  for  process  agents  or  include  'new  substances'  under  the 
general prohibitions.96 These  flexibilities are  enabling the Commission  to  adjust in  line 
with  technological  progress  made  and  new  scientific  information,  which  is  particularly 
important considering that the Regulation is covering a long time period. 

5.3 EFFICIENCY 

The  key  question  addressed  in  this  section  is  whether  the  costs  arising  from 
implementing  various  measures  of  the  Regulation  are  reasonable  and  proportionate 
compared to the benefits. 

5.3.1 Benefits 

The  continued  accumulation  of  ODS  in  the  atmosphere  in  the  absence  of  the  Montreal 
Protocol would have led to a collapse of the global ozone layer shortly after mid-century, 
with  devastating environmental  implications  (SAP, 2018). As shown in  section 5.1, the 
Regulation  contributes  to  the  global  effort  of  assuring  a  timely  recovery  of  the  ozone 
layer  and  to  reducing  highly  warming  GHGs.  The  Regulation  has  been  effective  in 
ensuring compliance with the Montreal Protocol and locking in progress achieved before 
2010  as  well  as  ensuring  further  progress.  Any  benefits  attributable  to  the  current 
Regulation  cannot  be  accounted  for  in  isolation  from  those  of  previous  legislation,  nor 
from those of legislation in other parts of the world. This also means that the effects of 
this Regulation and past interventions will continue to have positive effects far into the 
future. Due to the global nature of the beneficial impacts, it is not feasible to directly link 
an  annual  net  gain  in  ODP  tonnes  at  European  level  to  the  final  resulting  human  and 
environmental health impacts.  

5.3.1.1 Environmental benefits 

–  The ozone hole is recovering. As seen in Figure 14, the Antarctic ozone hole has shown 
signs  of  healing  since  2000  (i.e.  the  ozone  concentration  at  the  relevant  altitude  is 
increasing).  It  is  expected  to  gradually  close,  with  springtime  total  column  ozone 
returning to 1980 values shortly after mid-century (about 2060), while the Arctic ozone 
hole is expected to disappear by 2030 (SAP, 2018). Model simulations show that actions 
taken  by  parties  to  the  Montreal  Protocol  have  prevented  much  more  severe  ozone 
depletion than has been observed in the polar regions of both hemispheres (SAP, 2018). 
Atmospheric  concentrations  of  the  majority  of  ODSs  originally  controlled  under  the 

95  As well as for emergencies. 
96 

In  case  they  were  put  on  the  market  in  significant  quantities  and  the  SAP  of  the  Montreal  Protocol 
found that these substances have a significant ozone depleting potential. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
Montreal Protocol are now declining, as their emissions are smaller than the rate at which 
they are naturally destroyed in the atmosphere (SAP, 2018).  

Figure 14 – October  Antarctic  total  ozone  (observed  ozone  concentrations  and 
predicted development going forward if new sources of emissions do not occur) 

SAP (2018). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 

̶  There are important  co-benefits for the climate.  The  global phase-out of ODS since 
the  1990s  has  reduced  GHG  emissions  by  an  amount  estimated  to  be  five  to  six  times 
larger than the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol objective during the first commitment period 
of  2008-2012.97,98  Figure 15  shows  how  the  elimination  of  ODS  through  global  ozone 
policies  has  halted  the  radiative  forcing  effect99  of  these  substances  as  their  warming 
effect  gradually  reduces  towards  the  end  of  this  century  (SAP,  2018).  In  2010,  ODS 
emissions  accounted  for  less  than  5%  of  global  CO2  emissions  compared  with  nearly 
50%  in  1990.  Later  this  century,  unregulated  ODS  increases  could  have  led  to  global 
surface  temperature  increases  comparable  to  temperature  increases  caused  by  other 
GHGs  (SAP,  2018)  This  translates  e.g.  to  a  doubling  of  the  hydrological  cycle  (e.g. 
precipitation) over the next few decades, a potential threefold increase in the intensity of 
tropical  cyclones  by  2065,  or  4-14cm  of  additional  sea  level  rise  in  this  century  (SAP, 
2018).  

Even  with  the  Montreal  Protocol  in  place,  ODS  emissions  continue  to  be  a  relevant 
source of warming: As a point of comparison, the amount of CO2 emitted in 2015 from 
fuel  combustion  was  32  Gt  CO2,  while  the  CO2-equivalent  emissions  from  ODS 
controlled by the Montreal Protocol over 2020–2060 is projected to be 13.8 Gt CO2-eq 
per  year  (SAP,  2018),  i.e.  of  a  similar  magnitude  without  accounting  for  any  non-
compliance  that  could  lead  to  increased  emissions  (compare  Fig.  15  for  the  additional 
effect  of  recently  discovered  emissions  of  CFC11  on  climate  warming).  Furthermore, 

97   UNEP 

(2011).  HFCs:  A  critical 
http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8014/-
HFCs_%20A%20Critical%20Link%20in%20Protecting%20%20Climate%20and%20the%20Ozone%20Layer-
20111072.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y 

in  protecting  climate  and 

link 

the  ozone 

layer. 

98  These large contributions to climate change are due to the very high global warming potential (GWP) 

of ODS (some of which are more than 14,000 times more potent than CO2). 

99  Radiative  forcing  is  the  difference  between  incoming  sunlight  absorbed  and  energy  radiated  back  to 
space and therefore indicates contribution to the warming of the atmosphere and thus climate change. 

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
there are important, albeit complex, interactions between changes in stratospheric ozone 
concentrations and climate change. 

Figure 15 – Historical  and  projected  future  radiative  forcing  from  long-lived  ODS 
(Contribution to climate change under different scenarios: Black line shows development 
without  further  action,  purple  interrupted  line  shows  scenario  where  the  recently 
discovered higher CFC-11 emissions from Southeast Asia cannot be stopped) 

SAP (2018). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion (SAP, 2018) 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16 – Average  Global  Warming  Potentials  (GWPs)  of  HCFCs  and  HFCs 
(including HFOs) placed on the EU market between 2007 and 2017 

European FluoroCarbons Technical Committee (EFCTC) (2019)100 

The replacement of ODS has in the past led in some sectors, such as refrigeration and air 
conditioning, to a phasing in of other GHGs, the HFCs. However, collectively the ODS 
Regulation and the Fgas Regulation (the latter covering HFCs), have reduced the GWP 
(and thus the climate impact) of all these synthetic substances placed on the EU market 
together,  so  there  is  a  clear  protective  trend  in  addressing  the  climate  impact  of  these 
substances jointly between these two Regulations (Figure 16).101 The inclusion of HFCs 
under the Montreal  Protocol  from  2019 is  expected to  reduce  global warming  by  up to 
0.4 degrees by 2100 (SAP, 2018).  

5.3.1.2 Health benefits 

–  Modelling studies show that global ozone policies have avoided catastrophic effects 
on  human  health.  Large  increases  of  solar  UV-B  radiation  that  would  otherwise  have 
occurred  by  the  middle  of  the  21st  century  have  been  avoided  by  global  ozone  policies 
(EEAP,  2018).  Direct  adverse  effects  of  UV  B  radiation  include  skin  cancer,  eye 
cataracts  and  the  suppression  of  immune  responses.  It  is  not  possible  to  precisely 
attribute the proportional effect of a certain volume of substances to ozone depletion or to 
health hazards as the EU's efforts are only part of the global efforts to reduce the ozone 
hole. However, at global level data are available that indicate what would have happened 
if no measures of control of ODS had been implemented102:  by 2100, at least a hundred 
million  skin  cancers  will  have  been  avoided.  A  study  by  the  US  EPA  found  that  “by 
2100, failure to effectively control ozone depletion would have led to a total of between 

100  https://www.fluorocarbons.org/mediaroom/average-gwp-continues-to-fall-and-eu-hfc-emissions-decrease/  
101  In  addition,  more  and  more  non-synthetic  alternatives  are  used  such  as  CO2,  ammonia  and 
hydrocarbons, with very low GWPs (ca. 0-25) vs. several thousands for traditional HCFCs/HFCs. 
102  United  Nations  Environment  Programme.  (2015).  The  Montreal  Protocol  and  Human  Health. 

http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7738-e-TheMontrealProtocolandHumanHealth.pdf  

42 

 
 
 
   
 
                                                 
45 and 50 million additional cataract cases, just in the USA”.103 The total economic value 
of  the  health  benefits  from  global  ozone  policies  was  estimated  at  US$1.8  trillion  by 
2060 and comprised the avoidance of healthcare costs, as well as the monetary estimation 
of lives saved. 104 

5.3.1.3 Economic benefits 

–  Changes  in  stratospheric  ozone  and  the  resulting  amount  of  radiation  also  have 
negative impacts on ecosystem health, plant and animal health, air quality and food 
security  (e.g.  negative  effects  on  crop  yields)  which  have  been  avoided.  While  these 
avoided  costs  can  be  assumed  to  be  very  significant  to  society,  there  are  no 
comprehensive  “world  avoided”  models  of  these  effects  currently  available  (EEAP, 
2018).Error! Bookmark not defined. 

–  Damages to materials such as plastics and wood have been avoided (EEAP, 2018). 
UV  radiation  damages  the  functional  integrity  and  shortens  service  lifetimes  of  these 
construction  materials.  It  may  also  constrain  the  service  life  of  new  polymer-based 
photovoltaics.  These  effects  would  have  translated  into  important  additional  costs  to 
society. 

–  Some  EU  market  players  may  have  benefited  directly  from  ozone  policies.  This  is 
certainly  the  case  for  producers  of  alternative  substances.105  Equipment  users  also  had 
cost  savings  due  to  measures  aiming  at  better  leakage  and  emissions  control,  which 
avoided  the  loss  of  ODS  (and  thus  refilling  costs)  as  well  as  assuring  better  energy 
efficiency. Compliance with the Regulation may have served some companies to show a 
good corporate image to the outside. Finally, EU companies required to phase-out early 
as  compared  to  elsewhere  in  the  world  have  had  first-mover  advantages.  An  earlier 
study106  found  that  companies  in  the  1990s  that  developed  new  substances  earlier  than 
others were able to retain or gain market shares. Such economic benefits were however 
achieved mostly under previous versions of the current Regulation, as the large majority 
of  ODS  was  phased  out  before  2010  and  the  number  of  stakeholders  affected  are  now 
much smaller than originally the case.  

5.3.2 Costs  

5.3.2.1 Costs for undertakings 

The  measures  undertakings  have  to  comply  with  generate  both  (non-administrative) 
compliance costs and administrative costs, see Table 4.  

̶  Market  players  are  impacted  in  diverse  ways.  The  type  of  affected  stakeholders  are 
diverse (see section 4.1.2) and some measures are only relevant for some uses or sectors. 

103  Updating  ozone  calculations  and  emissions  profiles  for  use  in  the  atmospheric  and  health  effects 

framework model. USA Environmental Protection Agency, Washington (2015) 

104  Markandya,  A.  and  N.  Dale,  (2012). The  Montreal  Protocol  and  the  Green  Economy.  Assessing  the 
contributions  and  co-benefits  of  a  Multilateral  Environmental  Agreement,  United  Nations 
Environment Programme, Nairobi. 

105  e.g. Globally active chemical producers have shifted to producing HFCs (in the past) and HFOs (more 

recently).  

106  Vanner, R. (2006). Ex-post estimates of costs to business of EU environmental policies: A case study 
looking  at  ODS.  Report  commissioned  by  the  European  Commission,  DG  Environment.  See  in 
particular Chapter 4.1 Distributional effects within the production chain. 

43 

 
 
 
                                                 
For instance, the prohibition on servicing certain equipment after 2015 mainly impacted 
on the users of such equipment and not on users of fire equipment. As different types of 
players  and  sectors  are  affected  to  varying  degrees,  costs  by  undertakings  represent 
ranges rather than precise estimates.  

̶  The  number  of  stakeholders  affected  by  compliance  costs  is  relatively  small 
compared  to  the  situation  prior  to  2010.  The  transition  away  from  ODS  had  been 
achieved  previously  in  all  areas  where  this  was  deemed  feasible.  Only  few  additional 
restrictions were introduced in 2010. In particular, the EU had already completely phased 
out the main use of ODS, e.g. in new refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. Only 
servicing of such equipment with non-virgin HCFCs was still possible until 2015107. For 
those producers and users of ODS that are engaged in uses that are not prohibited, there 
are of course no direct compliance costs linked to the replacement of ODS. At the same 
time,  in  areas  where  a  transition  was  required,  undertakings  producing  and  using 
alternatives  would  have  been  expected  to  benefit.  For  some  players,  the  costs  and 
benefits would tend to equalise, for instance producers/distributers of ODS are often also 
producers/distributors of some alternatives to ODS. Still, the ‘low-hanging fruits’ were 
picked  in the past and any further replacement has likely  been more difficult and 
less cost-efficient.  

̶  Even 

in  those  areas  where  substantive  compliance  costs  were 

identified, 
undertakings categorised those costs as being low to medium (Table 6). The highest 
costs were linked to specific prohibitions (e.g. halons in fire equipment and refrigeration) 
and technical requirements for destruction, leakage, and emission control. These costs are 
eliminated once the replacement has been completed. Such is e.g. the case for the use of 
HCFCs  in  refrigeration  that  concluded  in  2015.  On  the  other  hand,  some  halon 
prohibition dates are  in  the future, but will  affect  far fewer companies  (mainly users  in 
military and aviation). For most SMEs, the substantive costs do not seem to place a high 
burden. Phase-out costs were more important to  larger companies (chemical producers) 
or  end  users  (aviation,  supermarkets),  whereas  costs  linked  to  reclamation  and 
destruction were named by medium-sized companies as relatively more important. Most 
companies were not able to quantify their expenses further. 

107  These  provisions  were  already  in  the  former  Regulation  so  undertakings  had  a  long  time  to  shift  to 

equipment without ODS which was readily available on the market.  

44 

 
 
                                                 
Table 5. List of measures from the Regulation entailing costs for undertakings (Non-
administrative (= substantive) compliance costs are shaded blue, administrative costs are not 
shaded) 

Measure 

Description of the cost for undertakings 

Licensing requirements 

Applying 
Licensing System) 

for 

licences  and  authorisations  (ODS 

Quota limitations 

Applying for quota (ODS Licensing System) 

Registration requirements  

Registering  for  essential  laboratory  and  analytical 
uses (labODS registry) 

Reporting requirements 

Reporting annually (BDR) 

General prohibitions (phase-out schedules) 

National inspection obligations 

Technical requirements for destruction 

Complying with phase-out schedules: 

  Stop producing HCFC by 2019 
  Stop using HCFC for refrigeration etc. by 2014 
 Stop using methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-

shipment by 2010 

 Stop using halons in certain firefighting 

equipment/remaining uses by 2010, 2014 or 2018 
Undergoing national inspections 

Complying  with 
destruction 

technical 

requirements 

for 

Technical requirements for labelling* 

Complying with technical requirements for labelling* 

Technical requirements for leakage and 
emission control and related Member States’ 
implementation measures 

Complying  with  technical  requirements  for  leakage 
and  emission  control  and  related  Member  States’ 
implementation measures 

*  Technical  requirements  for  labelling  are  not  included  in  the  cost  assessment  due  to  these  requirements 
resulting to a large degree from other legislation. 

Table 6. Compliance costs for businesses between 2010-2017. 

Economic substantive compliance costs 

Control leakage and emission when using the ODS 

Follow technical requirements during reclamation 
and destruction of ODS 

Undergo national inspections 

Stop using HCFC for refrigeration etc. (phase-out) 

Large 
enterprises 

Medium 
enterprises 

Small 
enterprises 

Survey score  Survey score 

Survey 
score 

2.58 

2.73 

2.24 

3.60 

2.69 

2.40 

3.25 

2.40 

2.08 

1.57 

3.00 

N/A* 

Respondents  were  asked  to 
* No respondent in this category. 

identify  costs  on  a  scale  of  1  (no  costs)  to  5  (very  high  costs) 

45 

 
 
 
  
Table  7.  Costs  reported  by  undertakings  for  administrative  measures,  in  hours  per 
year. 

Time (person-hours per year) 

Apply for a 
licence (ODS 
Licensing 
System) 

Apply for a 
quota (ODS 
Licensing 
System) 

Register once 
for essential 
laboratory and 
analytical uses 
(labODS 
registry) 

Yearly 
report 
(BDR) 

Number of respondents 

(N=13) 

(N=7) 

(N=4) 

(N=15) 

Average 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Median 
Administrative cost used in 
calculations 

1.1 

3.0 

0.1 

1.0 

37 € 

4.8 

16.0 

0.3 

2.3 

3.5 

8.0 

0.5 

1.3 

191 € 

124 € 

44.4 

225.0 

1.0 

22.0 

777 € 

Costs which appear in bold in the table were used to calculate overall costs at EU level 

–  Generally  administrative  costs  incurred  by  companies  appear  to  be  reasonable 
(Table 7). The answers by undertakings during interviews  formed the basis to estimate 
the  time  required  on  a  yearly  basis  for  some  measures  (Table  7).  The  yearly  reporting 
may  be  more  time-consuming  for  some  companies,  in  particular  for  larger  enterprises 
that  have  to  report  a  number  of  different  data.  Smaller  enterprises  are  somewhat  more 
concerned about the quota limitations in place and, to a lesser degree, about registration 
and licensing requirements. For the period 2010-2017, the import/export licensing based 
on single shipments for bulk gases created the highest costs (€1.9 million) due to the high 
number  of  single  shipment  licences  that  companies  needed  to  apply  for.  Reporting 
obligations  (€1.05  million)  and  registration  requirements  for  laboratories  (€0.5  million) 
also represent high costs due to the high number of the affected entities (see Table III.6 in 
Annex  III).  While  the  total  cost  for  licences  has  increased  until  2013,  these  costs 
decreased dramatically for the aviation sector when bulk  licences for some applications 
(aerospace)  were  introduced  (Table  III.6  in  Annex  III).  For  the  period  2010-2013  the 
total  yearly  costs  related  to  administrative  costs  for  all  undertakings  climbed  to  over 
€800,000, but could be reduced to a stable average of ca. €300,000 from 2015 onwards. 
Switching  to  a  new  IT  system  in  2013  caused  a  one-time  peak  in  administrative  costs 
related to (re-)registering in the new system. Overall administrative costs at EU level for 
all undertakings in the period 2010-2017 were estimated to be €3.7 million (Table III.6 in 
Annex III). This is considerably lower than the estimated €5.4 million for EU industry in 
the Impact Assessment in the baseline case. The expected savings of €2 million due to 
better regulation and simplification measures have therefore largely been achieved. 

5.3.2.2 Costs for administrations of the Member States  

Administrations of Member States  have implementation and enforcement costs, as well 
as  administrative  costs.  Table  8  identifies  how  these  measures  translate  into  actions 
required from the administrations of the Member States.  

46 

 
 
 
Table  8.  List  of  measures  (activities)  from  the  Regulation  entailing  costs  for 
administrations of the Member States. 

Measure 

Implementation and enforcement costs 

Licensing requirements 

Granting production authorisations; Article 10(7) 

Quota limitations 

Reporting requirements 

Reviewing quota applications together with the European 
Commission 

Handling reports from undertakings 
Reporting to the European Commission (Article 26) 

Phase-out schedules 

Checking imports and exports of ODS by customs  

National inspection obligations 

Conducting inspections or checks 

Technical requirements for destruction 

Promoting the recovery, recycling, reclamation and 
destruction of ODS 
Determining qualification requirements for personnel for 
the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of 
ODS 

Technical requirements for labelling 

Checking imports and exports of ODS by customs 

Technical requirements for leakage and 
emission control  

Defining minimum qualification requirements for 
personnel involved for leakage checks 

–  The  highest  costs  for  authorities  result  from  inspections,  checking  imports  and 
exports  of  ODS  by  customs  and  determining  minimum  qualification  requirements 
for  personnel  in  charge  of  the  recovery,  recycling,  reclamation  and  destruction  of 
ODS  (Table  9).  For  some  actions  a  quantitative  appreciation  was  possible  for  some 
Member States (see Table III.7 Annex). The cost of granting production authorisations is 
estimated to be close to zero.108 The cost of reporting to the European Commission was 
estimated  at  just  over  €300,000  for  all  Member  States  together  for  the  whole  period 
2010-2017 based on the reported time spent on these tasks (Table III.8 in Annex III). The 
most relevant reporting cost as identified by several Member States related to reporting 
on  the  use  of  halons.  This  cost  was  however  not  assessed  as  high  by  Member  States 
relative to  other  costs, particularly implementation and enforcement  costs.  The costs of 
inspections or checks were estimated by two larger Member States as ca. 400-500 hours 
p.a. (ca. €16,000-20,000), while the NL109 indicated over 4,000 hours p.a. (ca. €170,000). 
These costs could however not be separated from other controls, in particular related to 
F-gases.  IT  also  indicated  that  promoting  the  recovery,  recycling,  reclamation  and 
destruction  led  to  costs  of  168  hours  p.a.  (ca.  €6,800).  Minimum  qualification 
requirements were estimated as from 8-80 hours p.a. (CZ-IT). Based on these data, it is 
difficult to say if the anticipated cost savings of €0.7 million over all measures have 
been  achieved.  However,  significant  savings  of  up  to  €0.9  million  alone  have  been 
realised by reducing Member State reporting obligations.110 It is also clear from the 
above  data  that  expenditures  are  low  for  most  other  measures  with  the  possible 
exclusion of those related to inspections and custom controls.  

108  Most  Member  States  do  not  have  undertakings  producing  ODS.  For  those  with  production  facilities 
(5),  the  process  consists  simply  in  approving  requests  submitted  via  the  ODS  Licensing  System.  In 
some  cases,  these  authorisations  were  provided  prior  to  2010,  therefore  no  costs  incurred  between 
2010-17. 

109  Rotterdam is a main entry point for non-EU imports. 
110  €0.3 million vs. expected €1.2 million for the no change scenario. 

47 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 9. Costs for competent authorities of the Member States between 2010-2017. 

Administrative costs 

Survey 
score 

Time costs 
(days) 

0 

917 

Granting production authorisations; Article 10(7) 

Reporting to the European Commission; Article 26 

Implementation and enforcement costs 

Checking imports and exports of ODS by customs 

Conducting inspections or checks; Article 28 

Promoting the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction 
of ODS; Article 22(5) 

Determining minimum qualification requirements for personnel 
in charge of the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction 
of ODS; Article 22(5) 

1.36 

2.23 

2.85 

3.23 

2.59 

2.76 

Respondents were asked to identify costs on a scale of 1 (no costs) to 5 (very high costs) 

5.3.2.3 Costs for the EU public administration  

Table 10 identifies how the measures translate into actions required from  the  European 
Commission.  The  table  does  not  include  any  costs  related  to  international  negotiations 
with  parties  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  and  networking  with  other  countries  as  well  as 
evaluating, preparing or negotiating the Regulation.  

Table  10.  Measures  from  the  Regulation  entailing  costs  for  the  European 
Commission. 

Measure 

Implementation and enforcement costs 

Controlling & monitoring exemptions & 
derogations  

Technical requirements for leakage and 
emission control and related Member 
States’ implementation measures 

Reporting requirements 

Quota limitations 

Licensing requirements 

- Updating information systems with new parameters 
- Assessing Member States’ applications for derogation 
decisions 
- Granting derogation decisions 

-Setting technical requirements for leakage and 
emission control 

-Receiving reports from undertakings (Article 27) and 
Member States (Article 26) 
-Processing reported information 

-Operating the ODS Licensing System 
-Reviewing quota applications together with the 
Member States 
-Granting quotas 

-Operating the ODS Licensing System 
-Approving authorisations and licences; Article 10(7) 

Registration requirements for laboratories 

-Operating the LabODS registry 

–  The European Commission and the European Environment Agency bear significant 
costs  for  the  development  and  management  of  EU-wide  systems.  This  includes 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
administrative costs related to per shipment licensing for import and export, quota 
systems  and  registration  requirements,  company  reporting  as  well  as  advising 
companies and Member States. As regards costs incurred by the Commission, the costs 
related  to  the  licensing  requirements  are  highest,  followed  by  registration  requirements 
for  laboratories  (Table  11).  For  licensing,  for  which  only  a  general  obligation  exists 
under  the  Montreal  Protocol,  costs  are  particularly  high  due  to  the  EU  requirement  to 
have  per  shipment  licences  as  well  as  an  extended  scope  of  the  licensing  to  other 
substances  and  activities  beyond  those  required  by  the  Montreal  Protocol.  Other 
important cost areas are the registration requirements for laboratories and those linked to 
the licensing system/reporting as well as establishing quota decisions and allocations to 
undertakings. In addition to costs listed in the table, total IT costs for the Commission for 
developing,  maintaining  and  hosting  of  the  IT  systems  over  the  entire  period  between 
2010  and  2017  were  ca.  1.4  million  €  and  other  external  support  was  €290,000.  Given 
new  legal  requirements  on  treatment  of  personal  data111  and  on  maintaining  data 
integrity,  availability  and  confidentiality112  as  well  as  higher  hosting  costs  will  further 
increase  these  costs  significantly  going  forward.  Costs  by  the  EEA  related  to  the 
company  reporting  data  were  1139  days  for  the  period  2010-2017,  as  well  as 
implementation costs related to the IT systems of €931,600, two thirds of which is related 
to  external  consultancy  support.  It  is  quite  clear  from  these  numbers  that  the 
anticipated  cost  savings  at  the  EU  level  have  not  been  realised.  To  the  contrary, 
expenditures of EU-wide electronic services have given rise to important costs that 
had been significantly underestimated in the impact assessment113. In addition, other 
European bodies may experience future expenditures, such as EASA related the possible 
need for work regarding halon derogations. 

Table  11.  Administrative,  implementation  and  enforcement  costs  for  the  European 
Commission between 2010-2017. 

Administrative, implementation and enforcement costs  

Time costs 
(days) 

Licensing requirements 

Quota limitations 

Registration requirements for laboratories 

Registration for other ODS companies and customs 

IT system, related to Licensing requirements, Quota limitations, Registration 
requirements for laboratories (cross-cutting) 

Reporting requirements 

Phase-out schedules 

Measures to identify illegal trade & support custom controls 

Technical requirements for destruction 

Technical requirements for labelling 

1 056 

483 

583 

503 

1 076 

412 

141 

674 

40 

40 

111  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1725  on  the  protection  of  natural  persons  with  regard  to  the  processing  of 
personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such 
data. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1552577087456&uri=CELEX:32018R1725   

112  e.g. Decision (EU, Euratom) 2017/46 on the security of communication and information systems in the 

European Commission. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2017/46/oj 

113  The impact assessment expected cost savings for the European Commission of €0.3 million. 

49 

 
 
                                                 
Administrative, implementation and enforcement costs  

Time costs 
(days) 

Technical requirements for leakage and emission control and related Member 
States’ implementation measures 

Derogation decisions 

General correspondence and advice  

Ensuring data security and data protection 

Outreach activities (meetings and brochures) 

Assuring compliance in the Member States 

Providing access to documents 

40 

322 

191 

151 

91 

121 

111 

5.3.3  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  associated  with  the  Regulation  proportionate  to  the 
benefits achieved? 

–  The  benefits  of  global  action  for  controlling  ODS  are  huge  in  health  and 
environmental terms. The EU’s ability to reduce its consumption of ODS quicker and 
to lower levels than other parties of the Montreal Protocol made a strong contribution to 
combating  ozone  depletion  and  its  negative  health  and  environmental  effects  including 
climate change. In the period 2010-2017, the Regulation has contributed to maintaining 
very low levels of consumption and use of ODS, and thus minimised emissions from the 
EU,  but  also  from  third  countries.  As  emphasised  by  undertakings  and  competent 
authorities,  as  well  as  a  representative  of  the  Ozone  Secretariat,  the  measures  of  the 
Regulation  brought  about  higher  benefits  compared  to  the  Montreal  Protocol  alone  in 
terms  of  good  monitoring  and  control  of  the  consumption  of  ODS  at  world  level.  The 
Regulation has therefore been prolonging the effects of the previous EU legislation and 
served as best practice to inspire the measures of other Parties; thus ascertaining that we 
continue to enjoy these positive benefits going forward. These policy efforts continue to 
be needed as the recovery of the ozone hole may be significantly delayed if efforts should 
be cut back. 

–  These benefits largely outweigh the costs to undertakings and society. The number of 
stakeholders affected has diminished from previous Regulations and most of the costliest 
measures  (e.g.  phase-outs  of  substance  groups)  have  already  been  completed.  The 
different  measures  of  the  Regulation  are  now  seen  by  a  wide  majority  of  the  affected 
undertakings  as  resulting  in  low  to  moderate  costs  only.  There  may  however  be  some 
scope to simplify and address some inefficiencies of particular measures (see following 
section). 

5.3.4  To  what  extent  have  the  measures  been  efficient?  Are  there  any  unnecessarily 
complicated or burdensome aspects and areas of excessive costs? What are the reasons 
and magnitude of any identified inefficiencies? What could be the expected cost savings if 
these inefficiencies were absent? 

5.3.4.1 Prohibitions (phase-out measures) 

–  The prohibitions provide a large amount of the emission savings by preventing that 

ODS are produced or consumed in the first place.  

–  The  Regulation  generally  allows  minimising  compliance  costs  through  gradual 
phasing-out  of  the  substances,  providing  exemptions  on  specific  uses  and  derogation 
decisions  for  companies  which  can  prove  that  they  are  not  able  to  use  alternatives  for 
technical  and  economic  reasons.  These  controlled  grace  periods  for  the  most  difficult 

50 

 
 
 
 
subsectors  or  niche  application  areas  have  aided  the  efficient  implementation  of  the 
phase-outs by excluding the areas of prohibitive costs.  

–  The phase-out of HCFC use and production has had  significant emissions savings, 
but also resulted in costs for some undertakings. The costs for the earlier production 
phase-out  were  estimated  at  €2-9.5  million  in  total  in  the  impact  assessment.Error! 
Bookmark not defined. The affected companies are either gas producers or distributors, 
endusers  of  specialised  cooling  equipment  or  manufacturers  of  such  equipment.  Costs 
were  mainly  related  to  equipment  retrofitting,  HCFC  recovery  and  recycling  from  old 
equipment  by  contractors.  The  few  affected  companies,  including  a  handful  of  large 
international  chemical  producers,  experienced  quite  different  cost  levels  but  were  not 
able to quantify these costs. One stakeholder spoke of large-scale investments needed as 
a  result  of  the  phase-out.  Others  noted  that  return  on  investment  for  alternatives  was 
slow, or that it is  uncertain  whether  the phase-out  was  economically beneficial overall. 
Some stakeholders responded that the early Montreal Protocol consumption phase-out in 
the EU (2010 instead of 2020) had an insignificant effect on costs as it was buffered by a 
switch to other chemicals and the possibility to continue feedstock production. The ODS 
phase-out  has  indeed  provided  a  possibility  for  EU  producers  to  stay  in  the  market  by 
moving to the next generation chemicals. ODS (for use in developing countries)  are to a 
large extent produced in Asia today, where production costs tend to be lower after patents 
held by EU companies expired. The completion of the ODS production and consumption 
phase-out has therefore not led to a material market disruption. The qualitative estimation 
of costs given in Table 6 showed that phase-out costs were seen as the most significant of 
the  Regulation  by  undertakings.  Such  costs  would  usually  have  been  transferred  to 
customers.  Since  this  HCFC  phase-out  has  been  accomplished,  no  such  costs  are 
expected in the future. Similarly, the methyl bromide phase-out was achieved in the first 
year  of  the  Regulation,  with  significant  savings  in  ODS  emitted  (see  section  5.1.3.3). 
Administrative  costs  at  EU  level  related  to  the  exemption/derogation  scheme  were 
moderate and roughly in line with what was expected by the impact assessment.114 The 
expected  savings  of  ca.  €1  million  related  to  updating  the  exemption  regimes  as 
compared  to  the  previous  Regulation  may  therefore  be  considered  as  having  been 
achieved. 

–  The  halon  phase-out  is  a  good  example  of  how  a  regulatory  approach  can  foster 
innovation (section 5.1.3.2). Still, the replacement of halons remains difficult in certain 
applications  due  to  a  perceived  lack  of  alternatives  under  specific  use  conditions 
(Ramboll,  2019).53  R&D,  qualification/certification,  the  manufacture  of  new  equipment 
and  alternative  substances  create  costs  for  undertakings.  In  particular,  costs  related  to 
retrofitting of aircraft in  the future with  fixed fire protection  systems containing halons 
may result in very high costs in the estimated range of millions of euros, according to one 
aircraft  manufacturer,  as  potentially  larger  fire  extinguishers  considering  alternatives 
known  today  may  need  to  be  used.  For  undertakings  carrying  out  maintenance  and 
servicing  of  aircraft,  the  phase-out  of  halons  will  lead  to  changing  maintenance 
procedures  as  well  as  documentation  related  to  new  equipment  and  substances.  These 
costs  could  not  be  estimated  by  the  respondents.  The  Regulation  introduced  a  new 
exempted  use  clause  for  remaining  uses  of  halons  in  order  to  able  to  avoid 
disproportionate costs.  The derogation clause has not  been needed in  this sector to  this 
date. 

114  322 person days as well as further staff resources for advising companies/Member States vs. 0.24 MIO 

€ expected for 201-2017 by the impact assessment. 

51 

 
 
                                                 
5.3.4.2 Licensing requirements 

–  An  import/export  licensing  system  is  necessary,  as  this  is  a  requirement  of  the 
Montreal Protocol. Furthermore, trade flows still need to be controlled closely to prevent 
circumventions  of  the  prohibitions  as  a  number  of  ODS  uses  continues  in  the  EU,  in 
particular  the  use  for  feedstocks  (see  section  3.1.1).  Having  a  fit-for-purpose  licensing 
system and the labelling of ODS containers is crucial in this context.  

–  Undertakings  expressed  satisfaction  with  the  ODS  licensing  system  as  regards  the 
stability  of  the  system  and  its  efficiency.  The  ODS  Licensing  System  is  reported  as 
having improved compared to the system used before 2014. In particular, the time needed 
until  a  license  is  received  has  significantly  decreased  from  about  a  week  in  2010  to 
practically  no  time  at  all  for  some  licences  confirmed  automatically,  or  a  few  hours  to 
days  if  manual  intervention  is  needed.  In  the  past,  this  waiting  time  created  economic 
costs  related  to  shipments  withheld  by  customs.  The  licences’  validity  period  of  one 
month  apparently  still  causes  concern  in  cases  where  the  delivery  of  the  substances  is 
untypically slow or delayed.  

–  EU  yearly  bulk  licences  for  ODS  products  and  equipment  used  in  aviation 
introduced  in  2014  have  been  much  welcomed  by  the  affected  industry.  Whereas 
10,250 licences  were requested on average per  year before 2014 (up to  15,355 in  2013 
alone),  the  average  number  of  licences  requested  per  year  after  2014  was  only  2,338 
(between  2,000  to  2,500  licences  per  year).115  Estimated  savings  for  undertakings 
achieved were between €900,000 up to €1.5 million since the change in  requirement in 
2015 and over the four years that followed. The license numbers are still higher than the 
licences issued in 2007 and 2008 (<2,000 and expected to further decrease to 1,000 at the 
time)  before  the  scope  of  the  licensing  system  was  extended  by  the  Regulation.  The 
improvements  made  in  2014  was  possible  because  the  Commission  had  the  power  to 
adjust the licensing requirements. 

–  The licensing system created a high burden for EU-level administration. The current 
Regulation enlarged the scope for per-shipment licensing. Under Regulation 2037/2000, 
exports  were  only  subject  to  yearly  export  authorisations.  The  current  Regulation 
imposed  licensing  requirements  for  export  for  each  shipment  as  well  as  requiring 
licensing for products and equipment containing ODS.116 These changes are not assessed 
to  have  created  an  additional  significant  burden  for  undertakings  due  to  the  relatively 
efficient licensing process, but the setting up of an IT system and the personnel costs of 
manually  granting  the  per  shipment  licences  are  quite  significant  at  EU  level  (see 
5.3.2.3).  The  overall  effort  of  per-shipment  licensing  was  underestimated  in  the  impact 
assessment for the Regulation117,  not  least  because  the number of registered companies 
has increased significantly since 2010, due to both the larger scope and better awareness 
and  compliance  on  the  side  of  companies.  Hence,  due  to  the  extended  scope  of  the 
licensing system introduced from 2010, simplification in this area was not achieved 

115  Despite the lower number of  licences, in 2017 considerably  more  organisations  were registered (and 

thus controlled) than in 2013 (618 vs 284 companies). 

116  Shipment  licences  for  equipment  greatly  increased  the  numbers  of  stakeholders  as  many  new 

companies were covered, including aviation. 

117   1522 person days for 2010 – 2017 forecasted in impact assessment vs. 2786 person days plus IT costs 
needed  even  though  administrative  improvements  such  as  bulk  licences  have  been  made  during  the 
period. 

52 

 
 
                                                 
despite  the  introduction  of  implementation  choices  that  largely  reduced  the 
administrative burden. 

̶  Licensing  systems  of  other  parties  with  high ambitions are less resource-intensive. 
The Montreal Protocol only generically requires each Party to the Protocol to establish a 
system for licensing the import and  export of ODS. The Australian licensing system118, 
which  UN  Environment  lists  as  a  best  practice  example,  allows  for  bi-annual  bulk 
licences  rather  than  the  per  shipment  licences  used  in  EU.119  Likewise,  in  Norway, 
licences  are  granted  yearly  or  even  for  multiple  years,  while  in  Switzerland  single 
shipment licences are issued.120 It is therefore questionable if a manual granting of per-
shipment licences is indeed necessary to have good control over illegal trade, especially 
also  in  light  of  the  costs  involved  of  running  the  system.  A  system  avoiding  manual 
processing  of  per  shipment  licences  would  reduce  the  administrative  costs  to  the 
European  Commission  substantially  (by  ca.  75%)  and  have  total  annual  savings  of 
€50,000121 for affected undertakings. Such changes will be further explored under the EU 
Single Window initiative (see section 5.3.4.6). 

5.3.4.3 Quota limitations 

–  Quota  limitations  have  not  yielded  much  benefit.  While  the  costs  for  the  yearly 
process  of  quotas  was  judged  as  low  by  undertakings  (on  average,  the  yearly  cost 
amounted to  about  5½ hours), some competent  authorities have pointed to  the fact  that 
quotas did not represent any real limitations for companies (besides the burden of having 
to  apply).  This  is  because  the  Regulation  sets  no  explicit  annual  cap  for  the  import  of 
ODS for feedstock  use and halons. Quota is  allocated following the amounts  requested 
by applying companies, which generally overestimate their annual needs to be on the safe 
side. Similarly, quotas for process agents and laboratory uses, even though including an 
overall  cap,  did  not  present  a  limiting  factor  due  to  the  low  quantities  required.  At  the 
same time it is questionable if a strict limit would be appropriate for laboratory uses for 
some  of  which  alternatives  cannot  be  found,  such  as  in  reference  materials.  The  quota 
measure was therefore not a real incentive for developing and using alternatives to ODS, 
as  originally  envisaged  according  to  the  impact  assessment.  Implementing  the  quota 
system has resulted in ca. €11,000 total annual costs to undertakings and about 51 person 
days for administration by the European  Commission. The costs of the measure in its 
current  form  to  authorities  is  considered  to  outweigh  the  benefits  in  terms  of 
controlling  the  consumption  of  ODS.  Such  Quota  limitations  are  not  part  of  the 
legislation  in  countries  like  Norway  or  Switzerland  with  equally  high  environmental 
objectives.  

118  Australia  requires  licenses  for  import,  export  and  manufacture  of  certain  HCFC  equipment,  HCFCs 
linked to their phase-out, exempted uses and used substances and, for some of these cases, they also 
require  export  and  manufacture  licenses.  The  EU’s  scope  is  even  broader  and  seeks  to  monitor  all 
trade.  Australia  requires  a  non-refundable  license  application  fee  ranging  from  3,000  to  15,000 
Australian dollars.  

119  The  European  Commission  processes  approximately  50  licences  every  working  day.  Taking  into 
account time for correspondence with undertakings and processing of licence requests, i.e. about 1050 
working  days  over 
requests. 
http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7531-e-HCFC_Quota_system.pdf  

the  period  2010-2017 

total  of  50  350 

licence 

for  a 

120  In both countries, the import/exports per year are much smaller than is the case for the EU. 
121  €35.3/hour * 1.1 hour/license * 1318 single licences avoided 

53 

 
 
                                                 
5.3.4.4 Registration requirements for laboratories 

̶  The  registration  requirement  for  laboratories  is  perceived  as  burdensome.  This 
procedure was simplified compared to the previous Regulation where annual requests for 
exemptions  had  to  be  made,  while  currently  only  a  first  registration  followed  by  an 
update  every  two  years,  at  a  minimum,  is  required.  Registration  requirements  for 
laboratories were intended to support compliance by verifying that  ODS are not falsely 
imported  under  exempted  uses.  However,  there  are  a  high  number  of  research 
organisations,  academia  and  commercial  laboratories  that  use  ODS  only  in  minute 
amounts,  e.g.  for  testing  and  reference  purposes,  but  which  are  affected  by  these 
obligations.  While 
these 
undertakings,  often  representing  SMEs  or  microenterprises,  must  face  relatively  high 
entry  costs  in  understanding  the  legislation,  becoming  acquainted  with  the  registration 
system and providing the right information. Some undertakings remarked that the change 
to  a  new  IT  system  (LabODS)  in  December  2015  increased  the  burden  in  the  initial 
stages of populating the system. It was however recognised by some stakeholders that the 
data  collected  in  this  way  would  likely  be  more  useful  to  the  Commission  for  policy 
follow-up and oversight. Removing this measure would lead  to total  annual savings 
of  ca.  €50,000  for  undertakings  and  73  days  of  administration  costs  for  the 
European Commission. 

the  environmental 

therefore  very 

limited, 

impact 

is 

5.3.4.5 Reporting requirements by undertakings 

–  Reporting continues to pose a moderate burden to companies. Reporting was seen as 
the  costliest  administrative  requirement  by  undertakings,  representing  moderate  costs. 
Even  though  such  data  would  be  collected  for  business  or  administrative  purposes 
anyway,  actual  reporting  of  information  (entering  data  into  the  BDR)  still  appears  to 
represent an significant cost. Starting in 2012, the European Environment Agency (EEA) 
put  in  place  an  electronic  online  platform,  the  Business  Data  Repository  (BDR),  for 
company  reporting.  The  impact  assessment  had  significantly  underestimated  the 
costs  for  setting  up  and  running  such  a  system  (0.9  million  IT  costs  plus 
considerable  staff  costs122).123  Some  industry  actors  suggested  that  the  transition  from 
spreadsheets  (before  2010)  to  electronic  reporting  resulted  in  an  increase  in  burden  for 
undertakings initially. Stakeholders did not say that the reporting process was particularly 
difficult, but pointed out temporary instabilities and small inconsistencies of the EEA’s 
BDR system. These matters have been addressed by implementation choices outside of 
the Regulation, mostly due to year-on-year improvement of the EEA’s reporting platform 
and  the  extensive  helpdesk  support  provided.  In  addition,  the  BDR  is  currently  being 
linked  to  the  ODS  Licensing  System  ('one-stop-shop'  principle),  facilitating  access  for 
companies and improving data consistency as well as data security. Finally, stakeholders 
are  becoming  more  familiar  with  the  system  every  year,  which  greatly  facilitates 
compliance with their obligations.  

–  Reporting  is  vital  for  policy  monitoring.  The  electronic  reporting  has  allowed  for  a 
much improved data analysis and follow-up of ozone policies, with a high-quality yearly 
report produced by the EEA, as well as a regularly updated indicator and a confidential 

122  1139 person days in period 2010-2017 (see section 5.3.2.3). 
123  E.g.  for  online  reporting,  “An  initial  investment  of  €50,000  would  be  needed”  on  top  of  0.6  MIO  € 

(2010-2017) for collecting the data and reporting to the Ozone Secretariat. 

54 

 
 
                                                 
report  with  more  data  provided  to  the  European  Commission  and  Member  States 
authorities.  These  reports  are  important  sources  for  benchmarking  of  policy  progress, 
communicating to stakeholders and the public as well as identifying any emerging issues. 
Not  least,  the  monitoring  of  new  ODS  has  provided  important  insights  to  the  policy 
maker on the use of these substances in the EU.  

5.3.4.6 Reporting by Member States to the European Commission 

–  The  reporting  burden  for  Member  States  has  been  reduced.  For  a  majority  of 
Member  States  reporting  is  no  longer  perceived  as  a  significant  burden.  Requirements 
have  been  reduced  from  the  previous  Regulation124.  The  complete  phase-out  of  methyl 
bromide  in  2010  also  eliminated  the  need  to  report  on  this  substance,  implying  a  large 
decrease in time spent for affected Member States before the prohibition took effect. The 
separate  reporting  on  halon  uses  still  appears  costly  to  some,  but  is  vital  to  ensure 
availability  of  these  substances  for  applications  where  alternatives  are  not  yet  fully 
available.  The  changes  introduced  after  the  partial  review  can  thus  be  deemed  to 
have  successfully  improved  the  efficiency  of  reporting  requirements.  One  Member 
State  suggested  that  halon  reporting  could  be  integrated  into  the  company  reporting  to 
save further resources at the national level. 

5.3.4.7 National inspection obligations 

–  Inspections led to higher costs than other measures of the Regulation for Member 
States, but their importance is uncontested. Member States usually combine checking 
compliance  with  the  Regulation  with  various  other  health,  safety  and  environmental 
requirements  regulated  elsewhere  when  inspecting  undertakings,  allowing  to  make  cost 
savings.  Responsible  authorities  could  therefore  not  clearly  identify  the  costs  of 
inspections,  but  they  are  likely  to  be  smaller  than  costs  for  these  other  obligations. 
Furthermore,  ODS  activities  by  undertakings  continue  to  decrease.  The  time  invested 
varies  between  Member  States  due  to  the  number  of  stakeholders  affected  in  these 
countries  and  the  risk  approaches  adopted  to  inspect  companies.  Undertakings  and 
competent authorities generally agreed that inspections contributed to the effectiveness of 
the Regulation and thus the benefits achieved. 

–  Customs  checks  mainly  focus  on  using  digital  systems  to  check  that  imports  and 
exports are accompanied by valid licences. The cost of checking imports and exports 
of ODS is determined by the number of trans-border movements which must be checked. 
Three Member States were able to estimate that these activities took about 20 (France), 
28  (Italy)  and  250125  (Netherlands)  person  days  a  year.  In  the  future,  the  EU  Single 
Window  environment  for  customs126  will  help  to  further  automatize  this  process  and 
reduce costs for customs, while enabling automatic across-the-board checks with data in 
the  ODS  Licensing  System.  In  some  cases,  Member  States  respondents  noted  that 

124  Annual  reporting  requirements  for  recovery,  recycling  and  reclamation  of  ODS  and  for  HCFCs 
replacing  halons  were  removed,  making  savings  of  420,000€  (impact  assessment).  Furthermore, 
reporting on destruction of ODS was streamlined such that destruction facilities now report directly to 
the Commission rather than to Member States. 70,000€ were estimated to have been saved through this 
measure (impact assessment).   

125  Rotterdam is a main entry point for imported ODS for outside the EU. 
126

  https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-customs/electronic-customs/eu-single-window-environment-for-customs_en  

55 

 
 
                                                 
imports  and  exports  of  ODS  are  declining  relative  to  increasing  efforts  needed  for  F-
gases (i.e. HFCs). 

5.3.4.8 Recovery, reclamation, recycling and destruction 

–  Decommissioning  and  waste  treatment  practices  among  Member  States  are  very 
diverse.  12  competent  authorities  (out  of  23  respondents)  indicate  that  promoting  the 
recovery,  recycling,  reclamation  and  destruction  of  ODS  lead  to  minor  or  zero  costs, 
while 6 think they lead to medium costs, and 4 think they lead to high or very high costs. 
This reflects the different systems in place at national level (see section 3.1.2). Minimum 
qualification  requirements  for  personnel  in  charge  of  the  activities  have  often  been  set 
prior to the period of scope for the study.  

–  A majority of undertakings127 sees following technical requirements for reclamation 
and destruction as minor to medium cost. Costs also related to paying for destruction 
or reclaiming gases. Relevant decisions of the Montreal Protocol prescribe the choice of 
technology.   

5.3.4.9 Leakage and emission control  

–  Avoiding leakage is important on environmental grounds and related costs are not 
seen as significant.128 There are synergies with other legislation that regulates emissions 
of  ODS,  particularly  where  they  also  pose  health  hazards  (such  as  CTC),  as  well  as 
environmental  legislation  to  prevent  emission  of  pollutants  into  the  air.  Leakages  and 
emission losses constitute an inefficient use of these substances and their prevention can 
lead to cost savings (no need to refill) as well as better (energy) efficiency of equipment. 
The Fgas Regulation took over the requirements of containment for the ODS replacement 
substances (i.e. HFCs) as these measures were judged to be an important way of reducing 
emissions to the atmosphere and raising user awareness. 

5.4 COHERENCE 

5.4.1  To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  coherent  with  relevant  interventions  both  at  EU 
and international level? 

The  Regulation  is  generally  well  aligned  with  other  legislation.  Policies  on 
(stratospheric)  ozone  closely  link  to  a  considerable  number  of  other  policy  areas.  The 
majority  of  consulted  stakeholders  did  not  indicate  issues  of  incoherence  between  the 
Regulation and EU or international legislation, but a few issues were identified by some 
national  public authorities.  The lack of major inconsistencies despite the many existing 
thematic links to other legislation is explained by the fact that this is an “old” policy area 
that  has  been  legislated  for  over  3  decades  and  has  grown  organically  alongside  other 
legislation in related areas.  

5.4.1.1 Chemicals 

̶  Fgas  Regulation.  The  Fgas  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  No  517/2014)  is  regulating 
some  of  the  ODS  successor  substances  due  to  their  high  GWP,  and  can  be  seen  as  the 

127  66% relevant respondents had medium, minor or no costs; while 23% saw this measure as representing 

high to very high costs. 

128  12% of relevant respondents indicate that this measure presents high to very high costs. 

56 

 
 
                                                 
brainchild of the ODS Regulation. Many of the sectors covered by the Fgas Regulation 
are similar to those of the Regulation, most of all refrigeration, air conditioning, aerosols 
and  foams,  and  many  stakeholders  are  therefore  also  the  same.  There  are  important 
synergies between the two pieces of legislation, not least as regards lowering the climate 
impact of the regulated chemicals (see Figure 16) and the containment measures to avoid 
emissions  (e.g.  leakage  prevention,  training,  recovery  obligations  etc.).  As  these  two 
policy  instruments  have  been  developed  closely  together,  there  are  no  major 
inconsistencies.129 

̶  REACH.  ODS  placed  on  the  market  generally  also  fall  under  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1907/2006  concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of 
Chemicals  (REACH)  and  require  e.g.  (pre-)  registration  and  relevant  assessment 
processes. A public authority pointed out that an exchange of collected data between the 
REACH and ODS Regulation might facilitate better enforcement both ways.  

̶ 

Standards for laboratory use. Methodology standards are important for applications in 
research  activity  and  laboratory  analytics.  Standardisation  setting  is  therefore  an 
important  driver  in  the  process  of  alternatives  development  and  their  adoption. 
Standardisation organisations such as the International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO), the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and ASTM International have 
developed standard methods not reliant on ODS. As standard setting is a very technical 
and lengthy process, a regular update process is very important to  ensure that standards 
keep  track  of  technology  development  and  allow  for  a  wide  use  of  ODS  alternatives 
wherever  possible.  New  standards  developed  in  Europe  or  at  international  level  with 
strong European involvement are often replicated elsewhere and therefore have a global 
impact.  

̶  Rotterdam/PIC.  Regulation  (EU)  No  649/2012  concerning  the  export  and  import  of 
hazardous  chemicals  implements  the  Rotterdam  Convention  on  the  Prior  Informed 
Consent  Procedure  for  Certain  Hazardous  Chemicals  and  Pesticides  in  International 
Trade. The requirement of “prior informed consent” (PIC) is relevant for some ODS such 
as methyl bromide or carbon tetrachloride and it allows for better control of ODS trade. 

̶  CLP  Regulation.  Regulation  (EC)  No  1272/2008  on  classification,  labelling  and 
packaging  of  substances  and  mixtures  is  connected  to  the  Regulation  through  the 
labelling  requirement  for  various  ODS  exempted  from  prohibitions  under  the  ODS 
Regulation. There is good consistency between the two pieces of legislation. 

̶  Use of biocides. Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 concerning the making available on the 
market  and  use  of  biocidal  products  is  connected  to  the  Regulation  through  the 
derogation  in  Article  12(1).  The  Commission  is  empowered,  in  an  emergency  situation 
where unexpected outbreaks of particular pests or diseases so require, and at the request 
of the competent authority of a Member State, to authorise the temporary production and 
placing  on  the  market  and  use  of  methyl  bromide,  if  allowed  by  Regulation  (EU)  No 
528/2012.  

5.4.1.2 Customs 

̶  Given  that  trade  (e.g.  EU  imports,  exports)  of  ODS  is  heavily  regulated  by  the 
Regulation, there are important linkages to the customs legislation. For example, Articles 

129  Some  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  the  chemical  R1233zdd  is  an  (unsaturated)  HCFC  and  should 

therefore be regulated by the Regulation, rather than by the Fgas Regulation. 

57 

 
 
                                                 
15(3)  (import  license)  and  17(4)  (export  license)  of  the  Regulation  refer  to  definitions 
and  procedures  laid  down  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  450/2008,  which  was  repealed  by 
Regulation  No  952/2013.  Annex  IV  to  the  Regulation  provides  a  list  of  Combined 
Nomenclature  (CN)  codes130  which  the  customs  officers  will  have  to  take  into  account 
with regard to restrictions (such as requirement of import or export license) of import and 
export of ODS and articles containing or relying on ODS. A number of stakeholders have 
pointed out that some fine-tuning is necessary to align some of the detailed requirements 
of the Regulation fully with EU customs legislation. This refers to definitions of custom-
related  activities  (e.g.  import)  and  updating  of  procedural  details  such  as  maximum 
duration  of  transit  or  repackaging  activities.  Furthermore,  Annex  IV  of  the  Regulation 
lists  the  relevant  CN  codes  that  may  become  outdated  and  would  require  a  comitology 
procedure  for  updating.  The  usefulness  of  this  Annex  is  questionable  given  that  the 
relevant codes are automatically shown to users in the ODS licensing system and can be 
quickly updated should any codes change. Most importantly, it would be useful to clearly 
spell  out  the  role  of  customs  authorities  in  controlling  ODS  as  well  as  the  economic 
operators’  obligations  towards  the  custom  authorities  directly  in  the  Regulation  to 
provide more clarity to Member States custom authorities and to undertakings.  

5.4.1.3 Transport 

–  Aviation.  The  Convention  on  International  Civil  Aviation  (Chicago  Convention),  with 
the ICAO as its secretariat, sets health and safety standards for the civil aviation sector at 
international  level.  Currently  the  ICAO  is  working  on  establishing  cut-off131  and 
forward-fit132  dates  in  its  standards  for  remaining  uses  of  halons  in  specific  fire-safety 
systems in aircraft. It is important to note that the current efforts of the ICAO were in all 
likelihood  stimulated  by  the  EU`s  adoption  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  744/2010,  which 
replaces the previous Annex VI of the Regulation. There is lower ambition at global level 
compared  to  the  dates  in  the  Regulation  and  it  affects  fewer  categories  of  equipment. 
Industry  stakeholders  that  would  need  to  change  due  to  these  rules  favour  the  lower 
ambition  scenario  under  the  international  standards.  Finally,  at  EU  level,  the  European 
Aviation  Safety  Agency  (EASA)  has  made  an  effort  to  adapt  its  certification 
specifications (CS) for aircraft to the halon phase-out schedule laid down in Regulation 
(EU) No 744/2010.  In 2012, EASA issued three decisions133 through which it amended 
CS-23,  CS-25  and  CS-29,  removing  recommendations  regarding  halon.  However,  the 
amended  CS  does  not  explicitly  prohibit  the  use  of  halon,  which,  as  expressed  by  one 
national  public  authority,  may  mean  that  there  will  be  no  incentive  for  the  industry  to 
develop alternatives to help meet the phase-out deadline. Parties to the Montreal Protocol 
decided  recently  that  its  TEAP  should  engage  with  ICAO  and  IMO  (International 
Maritime  Organisation)  to  identify  the  relevant  alternatives  already  available  or  in 
development. A progress report will be provided to the Parties in June 2020.134  

130  CN codes: “common nomenclature”, referring to the international system of custom codes. 
131  ICAO cut-off date definition: No new application for Type Certificates possible if halon is present in 

the design. 

132  ICAO  forward-fit  requirement  applies  to  new  applications  for  individual  certificate  of  airworthiness 

(New deliveries). 

133  See  decisions  2012/012/R,  012/008/R  and  2012/022/R  of  the  executive  director  of  the  European 

Aviation Safety Agency. 

134  Decision XXX/7 on Montreal Protocol: Future availability of halons and their alternatives. 

58 

 
 
                                                 
–  MARPOL.  The  International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships 
(MARPOL) aims to prevent pollution to the marine environment by ships, including the 
release  of  ODS  to  the  air.  It  includes  prohibitions  of  some  ODS  installations  on  ships, 
that ships need to list ODS-containing equipment and log ODS uses as well as to ensure 
appropriate reception facilities for equipment when removed from ships. The Regulation 
is aligned with these obligations. 

–  Maritime law. Given the complexities of maritime law and e.g. the legal status of ships 
pending on different circumstances, there may be a need to clarify the obligations of ship 
owners  and  operators  under  the  ODS  Regulation  in  view  of  maritime  law  principles. 
While  many  of  these  issues  can  be  solved  at  the  implementation  level  though  e.g. 
appropriate guidance, other issues may require clarification in the Regulation.  

5.4.1.4 Waste 

–  The  Basel  Convention.  Regulation  (EC)  No  1013/2006  on  shipments  of  waste 
implements the requirements of the Basel  Convention on the Control of Transboundary 
Movements  of  Hazardous  Wastes  and  their  Disposal,  such  as  the  concept  of  prior 
informed  consent  for  shipments  of  specified,  e.g.  hazardous,  waste.  The  Regulation  is 
aligned  with  these  obligations  for  the  purpose  of  ODS  and  ODS-containing  equipment 
(which are considered hazardous waste).  

–  EU waste legislation. Waste-related EU legislation, e.g. the Waste Directive (Directive 
2008/98)  and  related  pieces  of  legislation,  are  connected  to  the  Regulation  through 
Article 22 which concerns the management of e.g. ODS and equipment containing and or 
relying  on  ODS  at  the  end  of  their  useful  life  (as  waste.  In  particular,  Article  8  of  the 
Directive  2012/19/EU  on  waste  of  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  (WEEE) 
determines  that  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  all  separately  collected  WEEE 
undergoes  proper treatment.  Its  Annex  VII  determines that equipment  containing ODS, 
e.g. in foams and refrigeration circuits, must be appropriately treated, in accordance with 
Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. Two national authorities raised the issue that definitions 
under the Regulation and waste legislation differ, e.g. for recycling and recovery. This is, 
however,  a  result  of  the  Regulation  using  the  definitions  as  agreed  under  the  Montreal 
Protocol,  for  consistency  with  these  obligations,  which  should  be  maintained.  The 
definitions  used  in  the  waste  legislation  are  broader  which  is  logical  as  they  are  not 
limited  to  the  situation  of  ODS  only.  In  practice,  this  lack  of  full  alignment  can  be 
addressed at the level of implementation through transposition documents or appropriate 
guidance. A number of national public authorities raised the need for more specific waste 
management provisions in the Regulation itself, rather than an encouragement to promote 
such measures as currently in Article 22(5) of the Regulation. At the time of adoption of 
the  Regulation  it  was  decided  to  focus,  first  and  foremost,  on  improving  the 
implementation and enforcement of the waste policy framework, notably the Waste from 
Electric  and  Electronic  Equipment  ('WEEE')  directive,  and  recovery  of  ODS  in  the 
construction and demolition waste stream.135 

–  Ship  recycling.  Regulation  (EU)  No  1257/2013  on  ship  recycling  aiming  to  prevent 
adverse  effects  on  human  health  and  the  environment  caused  by  ship  recycling  is 
connected  to  the  Regulation  through  its  Articles  4  and  5.  Article  4  determines  that  the 
installation or use of hazardous materials on ships shall be prohibited or restricted which 
includes  ODS  (see  Annex  I).  Article  5  requires  the  establishment  of  an  inventory  of 

135  COM(2008) 505 final 

59 

 
 
                                                 
hazardous materials on board the ship and includes ODS (see Annex II). Ship breaking 
activities are also relevant as they ascertain the supply of halons where still needed, i.e. 
for  some  application  in  civil  aviation,  as  the  Montreal  Protocol  has  phased  out  virgin 
halons.   Recently, Parties  to  the Montreal  Protocol  decided to  establish a closer liaison 
with  IMO to  facilitate the exchange between relevant  technical  experts regarding halon 
availability and to identify ways to enhance the recovery of halons from the breaking of 
ships. 

5.4.1.5 Air 

–  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (IED).  Under  Directive  2010/75/EU  on  industrial 
emissions (IED), best available techniques (BAT) conclusions can strongly determine the 
permit  requirements  that  should  be  laid  down  by  competent  national  authorities  for  a 
large selection of industrial installations. Waste treatment operations may concern ODS 
or  ODS-containing  equipment.  It  is  important  that  such  issues  be  considered 
appropriately  during  the  updating  process  of  the  relevant  BAT  reference  documents 
(BREF). The most evident example where this approach has borne fruit is the BREF for 
the  Chlor-Alkali-Sector136  whose  ban  of  ODS  has  significantly  contributed  to  the 
reduction of CTC use as process agent. 

-  EPRTR.  The  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  established  by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  166/2006  (EPRTR  Regulation)  includes  obligatory  reporting  of 
releases of ODS by operators of large-scale facilities. 

5.4.1.6 Research 

-  Horizon 2020. The EU Research and Innovation programme Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) 
has been supporting projects in the field of ozone monitoring137,138 and the development 
of  alternatives  to  ODS  in  the  fields  of  fire  extinguishers  on  aircrafts,  solid  rocket 
propellants and organic Rankine cycles.139 

5.4.2  To what extent is the Regulation`s structure and content coherent? 

While  generally  the  structure  and  content  of  the  Regulation  are  coherent,  a  number  of 
minor issues have been identified. 

  Some provisions need updating or have become obsolete altogether (Table 12). 

Table 12. Overview of outdated or obsolete provisions 

Article 

Issue 

136  Commission  implementing  decision  2013/732/EU  establishing  the  best  available  techniques  (BAT) 
conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial 
emissions, for the production of chlor-alkali, 9 December 2013. 

137  Horizon 2020 project 687428 - AURORA. 

138  Horizon 2020 project 633080 - MAC-III. 

139  Horizon 2020 projects 685482 – EFFICIENT, 638719 – GRAIL and 704201 – NanoORC. 

60 

 
 
 
                                                 
Article 11(1)(a) 

Provision valid until 31 December 2013 

Article 11(1)(b) 

Provision valid until 31 December 2016 

Article 11(3) 

Provision valid until 31 December 2014 

Article 11(4) 

Provision valid until 31 December 2014 

Article 12(1) 

  Provision valid until 18 March 2010 
  Reference  to  Directive  91/414/EEC  and  Directive  98/8/EC  should  be  replaced  with 

Article 12(2) 

Article 12(3)  

respectively new Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 
Article linked to Article 12(1) and therefore has lost function 

Reference  to  Directive  91/414/EEC  should  be  replaced  by  reference  to  new  Regulation 
(EU) No 528/2012 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 

Article 15(2)(f) 

Part of this provision is valid until 31 December 2014  

Article 17(2)(g) 

Provision valid until 31 December 2014 

Article 21 

Article 29  

Reference to the date 1 January 2010 not relevant anymore. Provision to be rewritten to 
exclude this date. 

Reference to the date 30 June 2011 not relevant anymore. Provision to be rewritten to 
exclude this date. 

Annex VI  

New Annex inserted in consolidated text  

  Some articles will expire soon (e.g. Articles 11(1)(c), 11(5), 11(6), 11(8), 15(2)(e), 25(2) 

and 25(3);   

  One  incorrect  reference  has  been  identified  in  Article  15(2)(k).  A  reference  is  made  to 

Article 11(5) that is nonsensical, and should instead be to Article 11(8). 

  Article 5(3) is considered imprecise by some stakeholders in terms of scope. 

  The  system  of  allocation  of  quota  for  essential  laboratory  and  analytical  uses,  as  laid 
down in Article 16(1)(a) of the Regulation in conjunction with Commission Regulation 
(EU)  No  537/2011,  has  led  to  different  mechanisms  for  quota  allocated  to  “old” 
undertakings that received quota before 2009 and “new” undertakings that received quota 
after this date. The allocation mechanism is favourable to the “new” undertakings. At the 
same time, it should be borne in mind that it is questionable if having a quota system at 
all for this minor use is efficient. 

National authorities made a number of additional suggestions for improvement, including 
enforcing  better  cooperation  between  Member  States  customs  and  further  streamlining 
with Fgas (e.g. leakage detection, custom definitions) and eco-design policies. 

5.5 EU ADDED VALUE 

5.5.1 What is the additional value resulting from the Regulation compared to what could 
reasonably have been achieved by Member States at national level? 

An implementation of the international commitments under the Montreal Protocol 
at Member State level seems very difficult to reconcile with the principles of the EU 
internal  market  and  the  free  movement  of  goods.  This  was  expressed  by  many 
national  authorities  but  also  some  undertakings.  The  EU  currently  complies  under  the 
REIO  clause  (see  2.1.2),  i.e.  as  a  joint  area,  with  the  Montreal  Protocol  consumption 
phase-out.  Without  the  Regulation,  Member  States  would  be  forced  to  comply 
individually and thus would need to regulate ODS consumption levels at national level, 
which  would  strongly  affect  the  market  players  that  work  across  borders  in  the  EU 
internal  market.  Furthermore,  import/export  licences  would  need  to  be  issued  for  all 
goods crossing borders between two Member States. For these reasons alone, it appears 
that regulating at EU level is required in this case.  

61 

 
 
 
5.5.1.1 Environmental benefits of an EU-wide approach 

–  An EU-based approach is likely to yield a higher benefit for the global environment 
overall.  Member  States  would  likely  implement  vastly  different  policy  approaches,  the 
sum of which is expected to be less ambitious as an overall EU-approach, even though a 
few  Member  States  may  choose  to  be  more  ambitious  at  national  level.  National 
authorities indicated by a large majority (21 out of 23 respondents) that regulating ODS 
at  EU  level  leads  to  a  lower  consumption  of  ODS  overall  compared  to  regulating  at 
national level only. Two national authorities also pointed out that banning ODS products 
and pushing for the use of alternatives becomes more effective with an increased number 
of implicated countries. Similarly, ambitious phase-out schedules linked to the possibility 
of exemptions and derogations to account for certain circumstances can be put in place 
more easily at the EU level. Some stakeholders in the open consultation stated that in the 
absence of EU-wide legislation, ODS already phased out today (e.g. HCFCs) would still 
be used in some EU countries and that the environmental benefits (at global level) would 
therefore  have  been  significantly  reduced.  It  is  not  only  the  EU’s  effective  emission 
reductions that are important in this context, but also its ability to lead and inspire other 
parties to the Montreal Protocol to take stronger measures by leading by example. 

5.5.1.2 Economic benefits of an EU-wide approach 

–  The affected undertakings benefit greatly from having the same obligations across 
the  EU.  This  view  was  expressed  by  87%  of  respondents  in  the  open  survey  and  is 
shared by most undertakings as well as national  authorities (93% agree) in the targeted 
surveys.  The  most  important  reason  quoted  to  support  this  view  was  the  level  playing 
field  provided  to  undertakings.  Others  also  argued  that  an  EU  approach  eliminates 
competition  between  countries  having  different  levels  of  controls  in  place  (“regulatory 
dissonance”) and that a proliferation of the effort needed by undertakings is avoided.  

̶  Regulating ODS at EU level is more efficient than at national level. The point that a 
joint approach makes it easier to implement, enforce and achieve better compliance was 
indicated  by  authorities  and  some  undertakings  alike.  Some  national  authorities  also 
pointed out that the EU-wide IT systems administered by the Commission are less costly 
than  operating  separate  national  systems.  Member  States  do  not  need  to  replicate 
expertise  in  running  them,  even  though  two  countries  mentioned  that  national  systems 
might have given the opportunity to design more tailored solutions at a lesser expense at 
country  level.  Some  newer  Member  States  added  that  in  the  period  of  pre-accession, 
implementation  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  was  more  costly,  as  they  had  to  deal  with 
licensing  of  ODS  imports  and  exports  themselves.  The  few  undertakings  (4%) 
disagreeing  that  an  EU-level  approach  was  more  efficient  pointed  out  that  (i)  national 
circumstances were considered less in the current situation as well as (ii) complications 
due to language issues.  

–  The  hypothetical  counterfactual  analysis  of  implementing  at  national  level  fully 
confirmed  the  stakeholder  views.  A  main  difference  in  costs  (time  or  monetary)  to 
Member States in the counterfactual scenario relate to the need to duplicate the existing 
EU  systems  with  operating  systems  at  national  level  and  additional  administrative 
measures that Member States would need to take. Another key difference is the number 
of  affected  undertakings,  because  additional  trade  flows  (i.e.  intra-EU  trade)  would  be 
covered  by  reporting,  licensing,  quota  obligations  etc.  This  can  for  some  measures 
multiply  the  affected  undertakings  greatly.  The  estimated  time  needed  to  implement 
additional  national  measures  in  the  counterfactual  scenario  would  increase  the  total 
administrative  effort  by  over  18x  compared  to  the  current  situation  (88,561  hours  vs 

62 

 
 
3,902  +  917  hours,  compare  Table  III.15  in  Annex  III).  To  these  costs,  IT  system 
management and IT support as well as external consultancy costs must be added which 
were  estimated  to  increase  by  ca.  28  and  amount  to  considerable  costs  (see  section 
5.3.2.3).  The  costs  for  undertakings  to  comply  in  the  counterfactual  situation  would 
similarly increase strongly as any undertaking operating in more than one Member State 
would  be  affected  by  many  different  licensing,  quota,  reporting  etc.  obligations.  These 
higher  costs  have  been  estimated  to  be  22x  more  than  for  implementation  at  EU  level 
overall  in  the  counterfactual  analysis  (see  Table  III.16  in  Annex  III).  In  particular,  the 
costs  related  to  license  requirements  (35x  higher  due  to  intra-EU  trade)  and  the  quota 
requirements (11x) would increase strongly.  

–  A loss of efficiency compared to a centralised EU approach could also be expected 
due to e.g. know-how and expertise losses. Montreal Protocol implementation has been 
in place for a long time now. As a result, experience, expertise, and practices have been 
built up at EU level, which would have to be largely restructured and reinvented, if the 
responsibility for Montreal Protocol compliance were fully shifted to the Member States. 
This  would  likely  lead  to  even  higher  expenses  in  the  counterfactual,  which  was  not 
quantified above.140 

5.5.2 What would be the most likely consequences of withdrawing the Regulation?  

̶  The EU's international commitments, its contribution to protecting the ozone layer 
and the concomitant environmental benefits cannot be  ensured without legislation. 
Prescriptive international legal  obligations will continue to  persist in  the  future  and the 
important achievements of the previous EU ODS Regulations that the current Regulation 
is building on must be safeguarded. Stakeholders in the open consultations stated, “in the 
absence of the Regulation, climate, the environment and health would be jeopardised.” In 
principle, the main consequences of withdrawing the Regulation would logically reflect 
the  mirror  image  of  the  EU  added  value  described  in  the  previous  section:  The 
advantages identified there would turn into disadvantages upon withdrawal.  To comply 
internationally  as  well  as  to  safeguard  the  accomplishments,  an  implementation  at 
Member States level would be needed. As was explained above (section 5.5.1), this latter 
scenario  would  be  neither  effective  nor  efficient  and  appears  to  violate  the  rules  of  the 
functioning of the internal market.  

̶  Affected companies and authorities have better regulatory clarity if all ODS-related 
measures  are  in  one  policy  document.  Withdrawal  is  not  the  only  alternative  to 
continuation of the Regulation. One could also consider an integration of the Regulation's 
provisions  into  other  pieces  of  EU  legislation  (e.g.  chemicals,  waste  and  industrial 
emissions). However, while sharing some important links to all of these areas, the core 
Montreal  Protocol  obligations  such  as  the  phase-out  schedules  and  related  exemptions 
and  derogation  do  not  have  an  obvious  place  in  other  related  legislation.  That  said,  an 
integration of the Regulation into the Fgas Regulation could present a possible option for 
the  future  in  case  this  were  proven  to  reduce  complexity  and  provide  more  clarity  for 
legislators  and  regulated  undertakings  alike.,  The  two  pieces  of  legislation  are  quite 
similar  as  regards  the  industrial  sectors  regulated  and  some  of  the  regulatory  measures 
prescribed,  

140  It  was  however  also  not  considered  that  there  might  be  scope  for  building  more  efficient  systems 
depending on the corresponding national situation, with possible savings in the total amount estimated. 

63 

 
 
                                                 
6. CONCLUSIONS 

The  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  shows  that  the  general  objectives  have  been 
effectively  achieved  and  the  overall  performance  matches  expectations.  The 
Regulation  has  ensured  full  compliance  with  the  EU’s  obligations  under  the  Montreal 
Protocol.  It  has  also  enabled  the  EU  to  demonstrate  a  high  level  of  ambition  for 
protecting  the  ozone  layer  and  to  contribute  to  the  broader  policy  objective  of  fighting 
climate change. The Regulation prevents that significant amounts of highly warming 
GHGs can reach the atmosphere, which continues to be important going forward as 
all sectors of the economy need to increasingly contribute in order to reach the 1.5 
degrees Celsius target of the Paris Agreement.  

The evaluation also shows that the specific objectives have generally been reached.  

 

In  addition  to  locking  in  the  progress  achieved  until  2010  in  this  policy  area,  the 
assessment  shows  that  additional  ODS  uses  have  been  eliminated  in  the  period  2010-
2017.  In  particular,  the  phase-out  of  HCFC  in  the  refrigeration  sector  and  of  methyl 
bromide141 has been completed and significant progress was made on halon substitution. 
Furthermore, the production phase-out of HCFCs is nearly complete.142 

  The  development  of  new  alternatives  was  incentivised,  in  particular  for  halons. 
Generally,  the  pace  of  replacement  is  slow,  simply  because,  if  it  were  easy  to  find 
alternatives, these uses would have been phased-out already previously. The use of ODS 
as process agents can be expected to end in the medium term, while many laboratory and 
feedstock uses will largely continue despite alternatives becoming available for some of 
these applications. 

  Some progress on preventing emissions of ODS from banks29 has been made. However, 
as waste management of ODS banks is also addressed by separate EU Waste Directives, 
the extent of the role of the Regulation is unclear. Still, a number of diverse measures on 
ODS going beyond the latter have been taken by Member States.  

  The combination of measures put in place to prevent illegal activities appeared to prevent 
such activities to a satisfactory extent. The largest quantities are used as feedstocks in the 
EU and there is no identification of significant illegal activities based on an analysis of 
the  reporting  data  in  this  area.  The  licensing  system  and  border  controls  by  Member 
States  have  been  recognised  internationally  as  effectively  enforcing  the  existing  trade 
rules on ODS.  

  The  comprehensive  reporting  on  ODS  activities,  including  on  new  substances,  has 

enabled the EU to monitor the emergence of new threats to the ozone layer.  

  By  effectively  phasing-out  HCFC  consumption  10  years  ahead  of  schedule  and  taking 
effective action on other uses still allowed under the Montreal Protocol, the EU has been 
leading by example. This has greatly helped to push for ambitious policies internationally 
in negotiations and sharing of best practice. 

Most of the emission savings  in the period 2010-2017 are a result of long-standing 
measures  and  not  due  to  changes  introduced  in  2009.  This  is  in  line  with  very 
modest expectations on emission savings of the partial review. The emission savings 

141  For QPS uses. 
142  To be completed by end-2019. 

64 

 
 
                                                 
from  discontinuing  methyl  bromide  use  for  QPS  have  been  achieved,  and  some 
emissions were saved as a result of synergies with waste policies.  

The  Regulation  remains  highly  relevant  since  the  EU,  as  party  to  the  Montreal 
Protocol,  needs  to  control  remaining  uses  and  needs  to  ensure  that  the  results 
achieved in previous decades are maintained. This continues to be relevant also in 
the view of reaching the objectives of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming. 
The  focus  of  (stratospheric)  ozone  policies  has  shifted  towards  ensuring  good 
enforcement  and  avoiding  backsliding  rather  than  seeking  to  legislate  new  phase-outs. 
Strong  enforcement  measures  and  control  will  continue  to  be  necessary  to  encourage 
third countries. By giving a good example, the EU can influence global discussions, and 
the required technical conversions, in a way that maximises the global effort, with both 
ozone and climate benefits.  

There  is  broad  support  for  continuing  the  control  of  ODS  from  all  stakeholder  groups. 
The  phase-out  schedules  of  the  Regulation  take  relevant  technological  and  scientific 
development  into  account,  not  least  through  the  combination  of  the  exemptions  and 
derogations, which continue to be relevant for uses where alternatives do not (yet) exist. 
That  said,  there  is  an  opportunity  to  update  the  Regulation  as  some  exemptions,  in 
particular for refrigeration, may not be necessary anymore. Furthermore, the possibility 
conferred  to  the  Commission  to  adjust  the  Regulation,  for  instance  in  case  new 
substances would become a threat, safeguards the continued relevance of the Regulation.  

Overall,  the  Regulation  has  been  efficient  as  it  indisputable  that  is  ensures  major 
environmental and climate benefits while it did not create disproportionate costs for 
companies  over  the  period  2010-2017.  The  benefits  of  the  Regulation  for  the 
environment and human health are very significant, even though the isolated effect of EU 
action  cannot  be  easily  separated  from  effects  of  efforts  elsewhere  in  the  world.  The 
number of affected stakeholders is declining and both authorities and undertakings agree 
largely that costs are moderate to low.  

The envisaged cost savings of the measures introduced in 2009 for Member States 
and companies have to a good degree been achieved. Savings of close to €2 million 
for undertakings were identified, and reduced Member States reporting obligations 
led to savings of €0.9 million. Conversely, costs incurred at the EU level have been 
much  more  significant  than  foreseen,  even  though  a  number  of  implementation 
choices have already been introduced to lessen the burden. In particular, the impact 
of  extending  the  scope  of  the  licensing  system  and  the  setting  up  and  running  of 
electronic  reporting  was  underestimated  in  the  impact  assessment  and  led  to 
significant additional costs that continue into the future. It is also questionable if the 
setting  of  quotas  for  exempted  uses  after  phase-out  completion143  and  registration 
requirements  for  laboratories  are  bringing  sufficient  added  value  compared  to  the  costs 
involved.  The  resource  needs  for  the  licensing  system  may  be  significantly  reduced, 
while  maintaining  or  even  improving  effectiveness  by  establishing  automatic  links 
between the central EU database and customs offices through the Commission’s “single 
window  initiative”.  There  is  therefore  the  potential  for  future  savings  at  the  European 
level regarding these measures as well as, to a moderate degree, also for the undertakings 
involved.   

The  Regulation  is  generally  well  aligned  with  relevant  EU  and  international 
legislation.  The  long  experience  of  the  Commission  and  Member  States  in  the 

143  For feedstock, process agent or laboratory uses. 

65 

 
 
                                                 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  ozone  legislation  has  led  to  high  integration  of  the 
legislation  within  the  EU  environmental  legal  framework.  However,  some  further 
improvements may be achievable. This includes inter alia better coherence with customs 
legislation  and  border  checking  obligations.  Similarly,  there  is  some  scope  for 
simplification,  improvement  and  clarifications  as  regards  the  coherence  of  the 
Regulation.  

The  findings  of  the  evaluation  confirm  that  only  a  common,  harmonised,  EU 
approach  can  effectively  implement  the  obligations  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  and 
respect internal market rules. An EU-level Regulation provides much higher efficiency 
than the hypothetical counterfactual scenario where each Member State would set up and 
maintain their own information systems and undertakings would need to comply in each 
country  where  they  operate.  The  EU  added  value  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  generally 
favourable opinion among stakeholders towards regulating at EU level in this policy area, 
both from commercial companies as well as from relevant authorities. 

Key challenges for the future include the need to maintain, in an efficient manner, good 
control over the remaining uses and trade of ODS, achieve further progress on reducing 
emissions  from  banks  wherever  this  is  feasible,  as  well  as  promoting  and  supporting 
ambitious action elsewhere in the world by demonstrating the feasibility of implementing 
ambitious policy approaches in this area and controlling emissions of remaining uses. 

66 

 
 
 
 
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The following lists sources that are cited more than once in the document.  Sources that 
only appear once are cited as footnotes directly in the text.  

EC  (2008).  Commission  staff  working  document  reviewing  regulation  (EC)  N° 
2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer "Better regulation building on 20 
years of success" - Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the 
European  Parliament  and  Council  on  substances  that  deplete  the  ozone  layer  (Recast) 
SEC/2008/2366 final [COM(2008) 505 final] [SEC (2008) 2367]  

EEA (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018), Ozone-depleting substances 
201x.  European  Environment  Agency,  Copenhagen.  The  EEA  also  produces  a 
confidential version with more data for use by the Commission and competent Member 
State authorities.  
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ozone-depleting-substances-2018  

EEAP  (2018).  Report  of  the  Environmental  Effects  Assessment  Panel  (EEAP)  of  the 
Montreal Protocol.  
http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop30/plenarypresentations/English/FINAL%20EEAP%202018%20MOP.pdf 

Graziosi  et  al.  (2015).  European  emissions  of  HCFC-22  based  on  eleven  years  of  high 
frequency  atmospheric  measurements  and  a  Bayesian  inversion  method.  Atmospheric 
Environment 112: 196-207. 

ICF (2018). ODS destruction in the United States and abroad. EPA 430-R-18-001. 

Ramboll (2019). Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 on 
substances that deplete the ozone layer. Final Report. 

SAP (2018). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. 
http://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap   

SKM  Enviros  (2012),  Further  Assessment  of  Policy  Options  for  the  Management  and 
Destruction of Banks of ODS and F-Gases in the EU. Final Report.  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex I: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING REFERENCES 

  Lead  Directorate-General  (DG) of the European Commission: DG Climate Action (DG 
CLIMA). In particular, the evaluation has been carried out by Unit A2 - Climate Finance, 
Mainstreaming, Montreal Protocol.  

  Decide Planning reference144: PLAN/2017/927 “Evaluation of the Ozone Regulation”. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

  As per the Better Regulation Guidelines on evaluations145, an ISG was set  up in March 
2017 to follow up and steer the whole process. The ISG oversaw the evaluation to ensure 
coherence  and  comprehensiveness  with  the  Commission’s  overall  responsibilities  and 
activities in related policy areas, such as environment and customs.  

  The ISG for this evaluation involved staff from the following Commission’s departments 
in  addition  to  DG  Climate  Action:  DG  Energy,  DG  Environment,  DG  Internal  Market, 
Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs,  DG  Mobility  and  Transport,  DG  Taxation  and 
Customs Union, DG Trade, Legal Service, Secretariat-General. 

  The  ISG  met  six  times:  27  March  2017,  14  December  2017,  6  February  2018,  5  July 
2018,  30  October  2018,  and  1  April  2019.  Through  these  meetings  and  several  written 
exchanges,  the  ISG  participated  in  the  whole  evaluation  process  leading  to  the 
finalisation of the external study and this Staff Working Document. 

  An  Evaluation  Roadmap  summarising  the  design,  purpose  and  scope  of  the  evaluation 
was published on 14 July  2017 on the Commission's  Europa  web site146. The feedback 
period was open from 14 July 2017 to 11 August 2017. 

  The Commission signed a contract for a Support study on the evaluation (contract ref. No 

340203/2017/767230/SFRA/CLIMA.A.2) on 27 November 2017.  

  An open public consultation147 ran from 1 June 2018 to 24 August 2018 (12 weeks). 
  The  Final  report  of  the  Support  study  on  the  evaluation  was  approved  on  22  February 

2019.  

  The meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) took place on 19 June 2019. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

N/A 

144  “Decide Planning” is a database and management tool for the operational planning and monitoring of 

the main political initiatives to be adopted by the European Commission. 

145  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en 
146  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-3562786_en  
147  https://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/public-consultation-evaluation-ozone-regulation_en  

68 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

This  evaluation  was selected for presentation  to  the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny 
Board. The RSB consultation took place on 19 June 2019.  

The  Table  below  summarises  the  changes  introduced  to  this  Staff  Working  Document 
(SWD) in response to the Board’s main comments. 

Main RSB considerations 

Changes made to the SWD 

The evaluation does not clearly present the 
achievements of the Regulation. It does not 
sufficiently  differentiate  what  the  current 
the  overall 
Regulation  achieved  from 
realisations of the longstanding rules in this 
fields.  

The  report  does  not  explain  how  the 
Regulation,  through  its  rigorous  system  of 
monitoring 
in 
implementation  of  the  Montreal  Protocol, 
relates  to  the  role  the  EU  plays  in  the 
global coalition. 

enforcement 

and 

The report does not clarify whether there is 
a  need  for  continued  higher  ambition  for 
the  future,  possibly  related  to  climate 
action. 

text  was  modified 

The 
(baseline, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  conclusions)  to 
highlight  the  recent  progress  made  on  all 
the  measures  of  the  Regulation,  including 
(i)  on  the  measures  that  were  maintained 
from the previous Regulation, as well as on 
(ii)  those  additional  measures  that  applied 
only from 2010.   

This  was  emphasised 
the 
document,  in  particular  in  sections  5.1.3.5 
and 5.1.3.6. 

throughout 

It  is  explained  throughout  the  document 
that the “high ambition” will continue to be 
needed  for  ozone  layer  protection,  even 
though most phase-out measures have been 
completed.  This  “high  ambition”  refers  to 
the  need  of  implementing  the  Montreal 
Protcol  in  an  effective  manner,  e.g.  by 
having  good  overview  and  control  over 
trade  flows  and  continuing  uses,  which 
pure 
goes 
transposition  of  basic  requirements  arising 
from  the  international  obligations.  While 
the  main  rationale  will  continue  to  be 
layer,  very 
the  ozone 
protection  of 
significant  emissions  savings  for  climate 
are achieved as co-benefit. 

considerably 

beyond 

a 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

This  evaluation  drew  on  the  internal  expertise  of  the  Commission,  on  an  extensive 
consultation  of  stakeholders  (see  Annex  II)  and  on  a  support  study  carried  out  by  an 
external consultant.  

69 

 
 
 
The evidence used for the evaluation comes from several data sources, in particular the 
annual reports on ozone-depleting substances by the European Environment Agency and 
the  consultation  with  stakeholders, 
including  Member  States  authorities  and 
undertakings. Sources are cited as footnotes to this document (see methodology).  

At a late stage of the external study, not least because of the constructive input provided 
by the ISG, it was decided to adjust the intervention logic and consequently some of the 
analysis carried out under the different evaluation criteria. While this adjusted approach 
was  adopted  for  this  SWD,  the  study  itself  was  concluded  following  the  original 
stipulations of its terms of references as the necessary refocusing was not possible in the 
remaining contract timeframe. This explains the existing differences in content between 
the  SWD  and  the  external  study,  while  the  overall  conclusions  of  the  SWD  are  in  line 
with those of the external study. This approach was discussed in the last meeting of the 
ISG on 1 April 2019 and welcomed by the participants. 

70 

 
 
 
Annex II: Stakeholder consultation 

II.1 Introduction 

Information  was  gathered  via  a  number  of  different  stakeholder  consultation  activities 
conducted with the help of an external consultant in the context of the Support study for the 
evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC) No 1005/2009  on  substances that deplete the ozone layer. 
The  data  collected  served  to  support  the  assessment  of  Relevance,  Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, Coherence and EU Added Value of the Regulation.  

II.2 Feedback on the Roadmap 

In July 2017, the European Commission published the Roadmap for the Evaluation of the 
Ozone Regulation.148 This Roadmap was open for feedback from stakeholders between the 
period of 14 July 2017 until 11 August 2017. The Commission received feedback from 2 
business  associations  representing  the  refrigeration  industry  and  the  maritime  cruise 
industry,  2  competent  authorities  of  Member  States  (Cyprus  and  Germany),  and  the 
Austrian Chamber of Commerce. 

The  maritime  cruise  industry  suggested  that  the  consequences  of  EU  legislation  going 
beyond  international  legislation  should  be  considered  in  their  impacts  on  the  maritime 
cruise industry. The Environment Department of Cyprus pointed out that the treatment of 
equipment  containing ODS  and particularly R22 under the Regulation  was not  providing 
sufficient options to Member States, as it currently led to imports solely for the destruction 
of  the  equipment  without  allowing  reuse  of  the  equipment  with  other  substances.  The 
German  Environment  Agency  recommended  the  consistent  strict  ban  of  ODS  based  on 
findings  from  recent  scientific  literature,  and  suggested  including  in  the  scope  of  the 
Regulation the refrigerant 1233zd and very short-lived substances such as dichloromethane 
due to their ozone-depleting potential.  In response to these statements, stakeholders from 
the  refrigeration  industry  contested  that  1233zd  and  dichloromethane  were  a  risk  to  the 
recovery of the ozone layer, supporting this statement with a position paper suggesting low 
emission uses of the substances. The  Austrian Chamber of Commerce suggested that the 
ozone  layer  was  regenerating  and  that  there  was  no  need  for  changes  to  the  Regulation, 
except the adaptation of minor elements such as exemption regimes. The feedback finally 
recalled that since 2008 the technical requirements for labelling of substances and mixtures 
that are “hazardous to the ozone layer” were complemented by classification and labelling 
requirements of the CLP Regulation. 

II.3 Survey of Undertakings 

A  survey  of  undertakings  was  carried  out  by  the  external  contractor  in  the  period  April-
May 2018. The survey was distributed to all relevant undertakings in the EC’s Licensing 
System  database.  It  was  comprised  of  34  open  and  closed  questions.  The  consultation 
received  363  responses  from  unique  respondents.  Of  these,  72%  represented  private 
enterprises, 15% fell under the category “other”, and 13% were representatives of research 
organisations and academia. The largest proportion of undertakings were large enterprises 

148  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiative/1448/publication/35878/attachment/090166e5b3c022a8_en  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(43%)  and  the  geographical  regions  in  which  they  operated  were  the  EU  (98%),  North 
America  (15%),  and  Asia  (15%).149  The  most  represented  industrial  sectors  were 
laboratories,  aviation,  and  the  chemical  industry  which  reflects  the  most  relevant  groups 
still  affected  by  the  Regulation.  The  relevant  ODS-related  activities  were  use  or  sales  of 
ODS laboratory or analytical purposes (39%), import or export of ODS (26%), and use of 
halons  for  fire  protection  (18%).  Their  activities  typically  involved  the  following 
substances  –  carbon  tetrachloride  (41%),  halons  (35%),  HCFCs  (23%)  and  CFCs  (22%). 
The  undertakings  had  to  comply  most  often  with  the  following  measures  within  the 
Regulation  –  applying  for  licences  or  authorisations  (52%),  registering  for  essential 
laboratory and analytical uses (47%), and reporting annually (38%).  

Effectiveness 
Overall,  a  large  majority  of  undertakings  (80%)  was  aware  of  the  requirements  of  the 
Regulation and indicated that the information sources they used to verify their obligations 
were EU manuals and guidance documents (60%), the Regulation itself (53%) and national 
institutions  (31%).  A  third  of  the  undertakings  reported  reducing  the  amount  of  ODS 
involved in their activities in the period of 2010-2017. This was due to (i) the introduction 
of substitutes, (ii) process changes or disposal of stocks and waste, (iii’) a lower demand 
for  and  supply  of  ODS,  and  (iv)  a  better  general  awareness  and  compliance  with  the 
Regulation.  Reasons  given  by  those  that  had  not  reduced  ODS  in  this  period  (38%) 
included (i) the small quantities of ODS involved in their activities (e.g. laboratories), (ii) 
the need to meet customer demands, and (iii) the lack of alternatives that met their needs 
(the latter for undertakings involved in aviation). While the majority of respondents either 
strongly  agreed  or  agreed  that  each  measure  of  the  Regulation  contributed  to  a  better 
control of the use of ODS, the measures “phasing-out HCFCs for refrigeration”, “phasing-
out  halons  in  firefighting  equipment”,  “controlling  leakage  and  emissions”.  “technical 
requirements  for  destruction  and  reclamation”  and  “undergoing  national  inspections” 
received  the  most  support.  Only  for  16%  of  undertakings  the  use  of  ODS  had  changed 
(positively or negatively) (also) as a result of factors unrelated to the Regulation, such as 
the  economic  situation,  market  demands,  other  requirements,  and  factors  related  to 
research  and  development.  Many  of  the  respondents  agreed  that  there  was  progress  in 
finding  alternatives  (48%)  or  that  alternatives  had  become  available  (46%)  as  a  result  of 
the Regulation, with less than 3% disagreeing on this issue. This was most often attributed 
to the fact that the prohibitions resulted in pressure to develop alternatives as well as the 
role of the market and economic drivers.  

Costs 
The costliest measures under the Regulation named by undertakings in the period of 2010-
2017 were “phasing-out halons in firefighting equipment”, “technical requirements during 
reclamation  and  destruction”  and  “phasing-out  HCFCs  for  refrigeration”.  Even  for  these 
measures,  however,  only  23-36%  of  respondents  identified  them  as  high  to  very  high. 
Additionally,  only  8%  of  undertakings  reported  that  there  were  other  substantial  costs 
unrelated to  the Regulation,  linked to  (i) changes in  processes  and practices, (ii) reduced 
availability  of  certain  substances,  and  (iii)  need  to  follow  changes  of  legislation.  The 
respondents reported several requirements of the Regulation, which they considered to be 
unnecessarily complicated, burdensome or costly, such as “registration related to essential 
laboratory  and  analytical  uses”,  “annual  reporting”,  and  “import  and  export  licences”.  A 
few  undertakings  identified  economic  benefits  for  themselves,  in  particular  new  market 

149  N.b.: more than one choice possible, e.g. for internationally active companies 

72 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
opportunities  and  a  level-playing  field,  better  corporate  image,  business  continuity  by 
using exemptions, and better control of substance flows and leakages 

Quality of the Regulation 
Very few respondents (3%) stated that they were aware of overlaps, contradictions or gaps 
between the Regulation and related EU laws (3%) or international legal instruments (1%). 
66%  of  undertakings  expressed  that  they  were  (very)  satisfied  with  the  ODS  Licensing 
System,  while  43%  were  (very)  satisfied  with  EEA’s  BDR  for  annual  reporting  (In  the 
latter case another 22% were (very) unsatisfied). 

Added value of regulating at EU-level 
Overall, 54% of undertakings either strongly agreed or agreed that regulating ODS at EU 
Level  was  more  efficient  than  at  national  level  due  to  the  advantages  of  operating  in  a 
market  with  uniform  rules  and  the  associate  lower  administrative  and  enforcement  costs 
(Only 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed). Additionally, 67% of undertakings agreed that 
it is an advantage that industries across the EU have the same obligations as regards ODS 
(4% disagreed or strongly disagreed).  

II.4 Survey of Competent Authorities of the Member States 

A questionnaire was sent via email to the relevant authorities in each Member State in May 
2018.  23  responses  were  obtained  by  the  agreed  deadline  of  20  June  2018.  The  survey 
consisted of 28 open and closed questions. 

Effectiveness 
The  majority  of  competent  authorities  agreed  that  the  Regulation  had  ensured  a  reduced 
production and consumption of O (96%) and that it had led to appropriate management of 
the remaining stock (77%). All measures of the Regulation were seen as contributing to the 
reduction  of  consumption  and  production  by  60%  or  more  of  the  authorities.  Some 
respondents (43%) indicated that there were also factors other than the Regulation that led 
to  a reduction of the consumption of ODS in  the EU, namely  research and development, 
other legislation, financial incentives, awareness raising and others. More than half (56%) 
stated that more needed to be done in the EU on regulating ODS, such as introducing more 
custom  controls,  ensuring  the  appropriate  treatment  of  existing  banks  and  removing  old 
equipment with R22/HCFCs. 

Authorities  agreed  overwhelmingly  that  undertakings  that  dealt  with  ODS  in  their 
respective  countries  were  aware  of  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation.  The  majority  of 
competent  authorities  (69%)  also  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  five  additional 
chemicals,  called  “new  chemicals”  should  be  monitored  under  the  Regulation.  They 
suggested including in the monitoring several additional substances, which they considered 
important  as  well.  These  included  HFO  1233zd,  very  short-lived  substances,  unsaturated 
HCFCs and 2-BTPs.  

When asked to specify the kind of inspection activities they had been carrying out in their 
respective  countries  to  enforce  the  Regulation,  the  competent  authorities  listed  custom 
controls,  environmental  inspections  on  entities  handling  ODS,  and  inspections  of 
undertakings  in  relation  to  illegal  activities.  The  majority  (86%)  reported  that  there  had 
been  cases  of  non-compliance  with  the  Regulation  in  their  countries,  such  as  illegal 
import/export,  lack  of  valid  licences  and  illegal  trade,  which  often  resulted  in  penalties, 
prosecutions and destruction of the substances. The competent authorities emphasised that 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the main challenges they encountered were related to a lack of resources to carry out the 
necessary number of inspections.  
All  competent  authorities  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  there  was  a  progress  in  finding 
alternatives because the ODS were controlled by the Regulation. Similarly, 87% of them 
agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  alternatives  had  become  available  as  a  result.  A  large 
proportion of the competent authorities (44%) indicated that they agreed that the possibility 
to apply for derogations was still needed in their respective countries while 28% disagreed. 
Most  respondents  (71%)  had  not  received  any  applications  from  undertakings  for 
derogations in the period between 2010 and 2017. 

Costs 
The  activities  with  the  highest  cost  for  the  competent  authorities  were  “conducting 
inspections”,  “custom  controls”,  “promoting  the  recovery,  recycling,  reclamation  and 
destruction”  and  “determining  minimum  qualification  requirements”  for  service 
technicians.  Most  respondents  did  not  think  that  there  were  unnecessarily  costly 
requirements in the Regulation but for a few minor points.  

Quality of the Regulation 
A minority (<25%) of respondents could identify contradictions, overlaps or gaps between 
the Regulation and related international legal instruments, related EU legal instruments or 
within the Regulation itself (e.g. the interpretation of some articles was left to competent 
authority). There was very high approval of the EC Licensing System and the EEA’s BDR 
for company reporting. 

Added value of regulating at EU level 
Most competent authorities agreed or strongly agreed that regulating ODS at EU level was 
more  effective  (92%)  and  efficient  (92%)  than  it  would  have  been  if  it  was  regulated  at 
national level. They appreciated the fact (93%) that industries across the EU had the same 
obligations was an advantage because it provided for consistency between Member States. 
Authorities also  highlighted the existence of the  single market  where EU Member States 
cannot  operate in  a vacuum  and that  IT systems  administered at  EU level are less  costly 
than separate national system including the know-how needed to run them. 

II.5 Public consultation 

A  public  consultation  was  held  on  the  European  Commission  survey  platform,  "EU 
Survey",  in  the  period  between  1  June  2018  and  24  Augusts  2018.  The  questionnaire 
consisted  of  62  open  and  closed  questions  and  was  available  in  23  EU  languages 
(https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/consultations/docs/0037/questionnaire_en.pdf). 
46 
responses from unique respondents were received. This relatively low number presumably 
reflects  that  this  is  an  area  of  legislation  which  has  been  around  for  decades,  where 
stakeholders are familiar with the policy measures and much less entities are still strongly 
affected  by  these  measures,  compared  to  the  initial  stages.  Of  the  respondents,  59% 
indicated that they responded to the consultation in their professional capacity, or on behalf 
of an organisation, and 41% indicated that they responded in their individual capacity. The 
most  represented  types  of  organisations  among  the  former  group  were  trade,  business  or 
professional organisations (41%), private organisations (19%), regional or local authorities 
(15%),  and  non-governmental  organisations,  platforms  or  networks  (15%).  Overall,  the 
largest number of organisations had headquarters in Germany (22%), followed by Belgium 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(11%)  and  Italy  (11%).  As  for  the  individuals,  26%  of  respondents  originated  from 
Germany, 21% from Italy, 16% from Poland and 11% from France, with other respondents 
also from Bulgaria, Greece, Netherlands, Spain and UK.  

Effectiveness 
Most respondents (82%) indicated to be well aware of the requirements of the Regulation 
and agreed or strongly agreed that it had contributed to the reduction of the consumption of 
ODS  (87%).  The  majority  of  respondents  (71%)  also  agreed  that  the  larger  number  of 
requirements  imposed by the Regulation  compared to  the Montreal  Protocol  had led to  a 
more effective reduction in the consumption of ODS, because they had resulted in a faster 
phase-out  of  ODS  and  an  accelerated  replacement  of  technologies  that  used  them.  Other 
contributing factors beside the Regulation that could be identified by the respondents were 
the  timely  availability  of  non-ODS  alternatives  in  the  EU,  increased  public  awareness, 
other  legislation  including  at  international  level  (e.g.  ICAO)  and  national  initiatives.  The 
Ozone Secretariat, in responding to this consultation, expressed a positive view towards the 
Regulation with respect to its contribution to the reduction of the use of ODS and had led 
to a more effective reduction world-wide. 

A  majority  of  respondents  (72%)  was  not  aware  of  any  unintended  consequences  of  the 
Regulations.  Those  who  were  (22%)  indicated  a  conversion  to  less  energy-efficient 
technologies in refrigerators due to the quick phase-out, the use of halon replacing agents 
that did not meet the safety criteria for aircraft certification and operation, and illegal trade 
as undesirable consequences. 

The respondents were more divided on the question of whether more needed to be done in 
the EU on regulating ODS. While 51% of them agreed or strongly agreed that more should 
be  done,  35%  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed.  Those  in  the  former  group  stated  that  a 
continued  effort  was  necessary  with  an  emphasis  on  illegal  trade  and  controlling  the 
remaining uses, while respondents that disagreed thought that the Regulation was sufficient 
in its current form and that emphasis should be placed on the global approach. 

The majority of respondents (61%) also agreed or strongly agreed that alternatives became 
available  because  ODS  were  controlled  by  the  Regulation  (as  opposed  to  4%  who 
disagreed) and agreed or strongly agreed that that there was progress in finding alternatives 
because ozone-depleting substance were controlled by the Regulation  (54%) (as  opposed 
to 7% who disagreed).  

Quality of the Regulation 
A  small  proportion  of  respondents  (11%)  stated  that  they  were  aware  of  some  gaps, 
contradictions  or  overlaps  between  the  Regulation  and  related  international  or  EU  legal 
instruments.  This  included  aviation  stakeholders  who  did  not  like  stricter  EU  rules 
compared  to  international  (ICAO)  standards,  and  others  who  wanted  to  more  strictly 
control the use of permitted substances. Lastly, only 4% of respondents were aware of any 
gaps or contradictions within the Regulation, respectively. A majority of respondents (68% 
or higher in all cases) thought that none of the measures were unnecessarily complicated, 
burdensome  or  costly.  The  most  burdensome  identified  by  a  small  minority  of 
undertakings (laboratories, some aviation/chemicals), in this order were “annual reports”, 
“halon  phase-out”,  “national  inspections”,  “registering  for  laboratory  use”  and  “quota 
applications”.150 

150  23-32% of respondents thought that these were burdensome  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Added value of regulating at EU-level 
With regards to the added value of regulating at EU-level, the majority (87%) either agreed 
or strongly agreed that the harmonisation of the obligations of industries across the EU was 
advantageous and credited it for the creation of a level playing field for undertakings and 
the prevention of illegal cross-border activities. Moreover, 76% of respondents shared the 
opinion  that  regulating  ODS  at  EU-level  was  more  efficient  than  if  it  was  regulated  at 
national  level,  since  that  allowed  for  a  more  streamlined  approach,  led  to  cost  efficiency 
due  to  harmonised  legislation  and  made  compliance  easier  for  undertakings.  Some 
respondents also pointed out that without the Regulation phased-out ODS would still be in 
use in some EU countries and that there would have been significantly less benefit to the 
environment and for public health. 

II.6 Targeted stakeholder consultations 

A number of selected stakeholders were interviewed or asked to provide written feedback 
on certain topics of interest following the company and authority surveys in order to obtain 
more detailed information.  

Ad-hoc interviews 
A number of interviews were performed by phone, with questionnaires sent ahead of the 
interview to guide the discussions, in order to better prepare or to explore particular issues. 
These ad-hoc interviews included one competent authority of a Member State in advance 
of  the  targeted  consultations,  four  industry  associations  on  EU  or  international  level 
affected by the Regulation, and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).  

Targeted consultations with undertakings and competent authorities of the Member States 
on the costs of the Regulation   
Targeted  interviews  with  undertakings  and  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States 
were  conducted  regarding  the  costs  resulting  from  complying  with  or  implementing  the 
measures of the Regulation. In total, 25 selected undertakings representing different sectors 
were  contacted,  resulting  in  20  interviews.  An  additional  9  competent  authorities  of 
Member  States  were  contacted,  resulting  in  8  interviews  including  6  with  competent 
authorities  of  EU  Member  States  in  coordinating  roles,  and  2  interviews  with  competent 
authorities from Switzerland and Norway. The interviews allowed to collect quantified cost 
data (qualitative and quantitative). Qualitative appreciation of the effort to comply with or 
implement the measures of the Regulation were collected to build on the efficiency-related 
questions of surveys and of the public consultation. It was easier for the respondents to put 
a price on administrative measures of the Regulation, whereas most found it very difficult 
to  do  the  same  for  substantive  compliance  measures  (phase-out  schedules,  national 
inspection  obligations,  technical  requirements  for  destruction,  technical  requirements  for 
leakage and emission control). 

Targeted consultations regarding the Coherence of the Regulation 
As  regards  coherence  of  the  Regulation,  10  national  public  authorities  were  contacted, 
resulting  in  7  reactions,  as  well  as  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency  (EASA).  To 
facilitate  the  exchange  of  information,  a  questionnaire  was  sent  to  the  relevant  national 
public  authorities,  which  was  followed  up  by  a  phone  call  where  necessary.  This 
consultation provided clarity  with respect to the issues raised by specific authorities (e.g. 
relevant  legal  provisions,  effects  in  practice,  relevant  examples),  an  indication  of  how 
urgent or relevant the raised issues were for the work of each stakeholder, and suggestions 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  other  stakeholders  who  should  be  consulted.  The  main  issues  discussed  in  the 
consultation  regarded  the  coherence  of  the  Regulation  with  customs  legislation,  the 
aviation sector´s phase-out of the use of halons in fire-fighting system, EU chemicals and 
waste legislation. 

II.7 Stakeholder workshop 

In order to validate the preliminary results of the study, a final stakeholder workshop was 
held  on  7  November  2018  in  Brussels.  30  representatives  of  national  authorities  and 
industry  organisations  participated.  A  briefing  paper  summarising  the  results  of  the 
preliminary findings of the support study on the evaluation of the Regulation was provided 
to  participants  in  advance.  All  stakeholders  responding  to  the  open  survey  and  thus 
showing  interest  in  this  exercise  were  invited  to  this  meeting  in  addition  to  any 
supranational  associations  known  to  be  affected  by  the  Regulation.  At  the  meeting  the 
external contractor presented in detail the findings for the five evaluation categories. The 
attendees were invited to provide comments and to answer specific questions. 

In  general,  the  participants  did  not  challenge  the  assertions  made  in  the  presentation  on 
Effectiveness, Relevance, Efficiency (including on benefits and costs), Coherence and EU 
Added Value of the Regulation151. On a question by a participant it was clarified that about 
800 companies are registered in the ODS Licensing System, as well as 1200 laboratories. 
Several  Member  States  indicated  that  leakage  control  measures  are  very  important  and 
increase the awareness of users, but good enforcement is key. One Member State pointed 
out  that  it  is  was  hard  to  quantify  the  impact  of  this  type  of  measures.  On  end-of-life 
treatment  one  NGO  emphasised  that  the  differences  between  waste  management 
regulations in Member States complicated enforcement. One Member State also indicated 
that  it  considered  the  quota  allocation  system  to  be  inefficient,  ineffective,  and  time-
consuming  and,  with  respect  to  coherence,  believed  that  several  provisions  of  the 
Regulation  were  obsolete  and  should  be  removed.  There  was  a  general  agreement  by 
participating  Member  States  that  the  phase-out  of  some  ODS  (e.g.  HCFCs,  halons)  as  a 
result  of  the  Regulation,  had  led  to  a  shift  towards  the  use  of  alternatives.  Examples 
mentioned  were  the  refrigeration  sector,  the  replacement  of  some  process  agents  and  the 
development of halon alternatives. 

The Commission as chair concluded on the basis of the presentation by the contractor and 
the comments  by stakeholders present  that the Regulation appears to  work pretty  well in 
general  terms,  has  huge  benefits  for  the  environment  at  very  moderate  costs  and  will 
clearly  continue  to  be  needed  at  EU  level,  not  least  to  fulfil  the  EU's  international 
obligations. However, there also appears to be some room for improvement in relation to 
simplification and coherence.  

In addition to expressing their opinions during the workshop, the participants were invited 
to provide written answers to the questions posed during the workshop, in particular on the 
costs of measures and on issues of implementation at national level. In total, 7 attendees (6 
Member  States  and  1  undertaking)  sent  responses  after  the  meeting.  Member  States 
provided  example  of  steps  taken  to  promote  the  recovery,  recycling,  reclamation  and 
destruction of ODS, such as organising awareness raising campaigns, introducing emission 
fees, establishing electronic databases and emission inventories, building handling centres 
for  ODS,  strengthening  custom  controls,  and  creating  sanctions  for  infringements.  An 

151  Participants were directly asked to comment on these issues.  

77 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
overview  of  the  latter  was  hard  ot  establish  given  that  most  infringements  result  in 
administrative  fines  that  are  not  addressed  in  any  way.  The  undertaking  agreed  that  the 
health, environmental and economic benefits of the Regulation were worth the costs. One 
Member  State  warned  that  comparisons  between  actual  benefits  in  the  period  2010-2017 
and costs should be approached with caution (as the benefits of this policy extends much 
beyond this period), and it expressed its belief that the incremental cost for companies and 
the  administrative  cost  of  authorities  deriving  from 
the  ODS  Regulation  were 
indispensable  investments  in  the  future.  The  same  Member  State  also  emphasised  that 
while  many  alternatives  had  already  been  introduced  before  the  current  version  of  the 
Regulation,  while  the  latter  had  also  significantly  contributed  to  the  continuous 
development of alternatives. 

78 

 
 
 
Annex III: Methods and analytical models 

III.1 Data sources 

A  lot  of  relevant  data  is  available  and  was  used  for  this  evaluation  which  comprises  e.g. 
annual  reporting  data  by  undertakings  and  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States; 
reports by the European Commission to the Ozone Secretariat; data from the Commission’s 
ODS  licensing  system;  reports  by  the  Montreal  Protocol`s  technical  bodies  such  as  EEAP 
(Environmental  Effects  Assessment  Panel),  TEAP  (Technology  and  Economic  Assessment 
Panel)  and  SAP  (Scientific  Assessment  Panel);  decisions  of  the  Montreal  Protocol  or  its 
Implementation Committee; and scientific literature. 

III.2 Data on alternatives 

Information  for  potential  alternatives  on  exempted  uses,  in  particular  for  remaining  uses  of 
halon and on process agents, was collected by the external contractor. The analysis included 
an online-based literature research, where relevant sources and publications were identified, 
in  particular  scientific  publications,  publications  by  producers  and  operators,  relevant 
government  agency  publications  such  as  US  EPA,  Australian  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Forestry, Nordic Council of Ministers, as well as UNIDO, and several reports 
of  the  TEAP  or  the  TEAP’s  Halons  Technical  Options  Committee  (HTOC).  This  was 
complemented  by  responses  from  the  consultations,  in  particular  the  targeted  interviews, 
including  a  telephone  conference  with  the  ICCAIA  and  EASA.  These  results  are  found  in 
Ramboll (2019). 

III.3 Cost assessment 

The  costs  of  complying  with  the  Regulation  received  particular  attention  in  order  to  assess 
their  proportionality  and  whether  the  measures  of  the  regulation  were  efficient.  In  total,  27 
interviews  were  conducted  to  collect  cost  information  from  administrations  (7  interviews) 
and undertakings (20 interviews). An effort was made to  ensure a representative sample by 
targeting  “typical”,  rather  than  “exceptional”  organisations,  based  on  the  knowledge  of  the 
concerned  sectors  and  relevant  stakeholders.  The  sample  was  drawn  to  ensure  sufficient 
coverage of the different measures of the Regulation, i.e. such that at least 3 respondents per 
each measure would be able to answer questions regarding its costs. Exploratory interviews 
were  used  to  understand  the  practical  steps  to  complying  with  the  obligations,  identify 
business-as-usual  obligations,  and  to  test  and  refine  the  questionnaire.  On  the  basis  of  the 
developed questionnaires undertakings and administrations provided for each measure of the 
Regulation the extent of the cost of the Regulation in qualitative terms and, to the extent that 
the respondents were able to provide good estimates, also in quantitative terms, i.e. either the 
time required per action or monetary cost per equipment was collected.  

III.3.1 Costs for undertakings  

The following assumptions were made: 

̶  Rather  than  undertaking’s  size,  the  number  of  substances  dealt  with  and  the  number  of 

licences/quotas an undertaking applies for was assumed to drive cost variations;  

79 

 
 
 
 
̶  Costs  differ  per  type  of  substance  with  regards  to  phasing-out  and  finding  alternatives.  All 
substances were covered in the sample152; 

̶  Costs  were  assumed  to  be  the  same  across  all  Member  States,  consequently  undertakings 

were not selected according to their location of activities. 

Yearly  costs  were  obtained  from  stakeholders.  Only  the  costs  related  to  administrative 
measures  could  be  quantified  by  sufficient  respondents.153  For  compliance  costs,  therefore, 
the replies of undertakings on a scale from 1 (no costs) to 5 (very high costs) were used to 
give a qualitative estimation of how costly different measures were.  

The  responses  from  undertakings  on  costs  for  administrative  measures  are  shown  in  Table 
III.1.  For  licences  and  registrations  a  unit  cost was  determined,  as  multiple  licences  can  be 
applied  for  in  a  year  and  registrations  for  laboratories  occurs  at  least  once  every  two  years 
(Table  III.2  and  III.3).  Yearly  time  averages  were  computed  from  these  lists  for  each 
administrative measure (Table III.4).  

Table III.1 Table of time per measure in hours per year per undertaking. 

Undertaking 

Apply for licences 
(ODS Licensing 
System) 

Apply for quota 
(ODS Licensing 
System) 

Register for 
essential 
laboratory and 
analytical uses 
(labODS registry) 

Report annually 
(BDR) 

Undertaking 1 

Undertaking 2 

Undertaking 3 

Undertaking 4 

Undertaking 5 

Undertaking 6 

1 

144 

1 

0 

Undertaking 7 

350 

Undertaking 8 

Undertaking 9 

Undertaking 10 

Undertaking 11 

Undertaking 12 

Undertaking 13 

Undertaking 14 

30 

2 

1 

16 

0 

8 

4 

0.33 

0.25 

225 

16 

168 

1 

80 

40 

6 

16 

2 

10 

40 

152  For the  main affected sector of the past, the refrigeration industry, the phase-out has been completed (see 
effectiveness). Costs for endusers in the sector were therefore not included. On the other hand, for halons 
the aviation industry as endusers of fire protection units was included. 

153  In addition the costs of reporting on new substances could not be quantified but is assumed to be similar to 

those costs related to reporting on the ODS covered by the Montreal Protocol. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Undertaking 

Apply for licences 
(ODS Licensing 
System) 

Apply for quota 
(ODS Licensing 
System) 

Register for 
essential 
laboratory and 
analytical uses 
(labODS registry) 

Report annually 
(BDR) 

Undertaking 15 

Undertaking 16 

126 

13 

1 

0.50 

0.05 

Undertaking 17 

Undertaking 18 

Undertaking 19 

Undertaking 20 

104 

2.00 

Undertaking 21 

Undertaking 22 

52.0 

Undertaking 23 

8 

30 

40 

2 

28.0 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  III.2  Calculation  table  for  unit  time  cost  per  license,  based  on  background  data 
from European Commission systems. 

Undertaking 

Undertaking 1 

Undertaking 2 

Undertaking 3 

Undertaking 4 

Undertaking 5 

Undertaking 6 

Undertaking 7 

Undertaking 8 

Undertaking 9 

Undertaking 10 

Undertaking 11 

Undertaking 12 

Undertaking 13 

Undertaking 14 

Undertaking 15 

Undertaking 16 

Undertaking 17 

Undertaking 18 

Undertaking 19 

Undertaking 20 

Undertaking 21 

Undertaking 22 

Undertaking 23 

Average number of licences 
applied for per year (ODS 
Licensing System) 

Average time per license (hours) 

N/A 

0.25 

48 

1 

N/A 

3 

200* 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

24 

4 

11 

N/A 

314 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

4.3 

N/A 

48.5 

N/A 

N/A 

2 

3 

1 

N/A 

0 

2 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

1 

1 

0.08 

N/A 

0.40 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.5 

N/A 

1.07 

N/A 

 
 

The respondent’s own estimate was used.  
Note:  N/A  is  indicated  wherever  an  undertaking  could  not  indicate  a  time  needed  for  licensing,  or  when  the 
undertaking never applied for a license. 

82 

 
 
Table  III.3  Calculation  table  for  unit  time  cost  per  essential  laboratory  and  analytical 
uses registration, based on background data from European Commission systems. 

Undertaking 

Undertaking 1 

Undertaking 2 

Undertaking 3 

Undertaking 4 

Undertaking 5 

Undertaking 6 

Undertaking 7 

Undertaking 8 

Undertaking 9 

Undertaking 10 

Undertaking 11 

Undertaking 12 

Undertaking 13 

Undertaking 14 

Undertaking 15 

Undertaking 16 

Undertaking 17 

Undertaking 18 

Undertaking 19 

Undertaking 20 

Undertaking 21 

Undertaking 22 

Undertaking 23 

Average number of 
registration per year 

Average time per 
registration 

Average time per 
registration in a year 

N/A 

N/A 

1.0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.3 

0.5 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.3 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

8.0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

2.0 

0.1 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

8.0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

8.0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.5 

0.1 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

2.0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A  is  indicated  wherever  an  undertaking  could  not  indicate  a  time  needed  for  registration.  Numbers  rounded  to  1 
decimal. 

83 

 
 
Table  III.4  Costs  reported  by  undertakings  for  administrative  measures,  in  hours  per 
year. 

Time (person-hours per year) 

Apply for one 
licence (ODS 
Licensing 
System) 

Apply for one 
quota (ODS 
Licensing 
System) 

Register once 
for essential 
laboratory and 
analytical uses 
(labODS 
registry) 

Yearly 
report 
(BDR) 

Number of respondents 

(N=13) 

(N=7) 

(N=4) 

(N=15) 

Average 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Median 

1.1 

3.0 

0.1 

1.0 

4.8 

16.0 

0.3 

2.3 

3.5 

8.0 

0.5 

1.3 

44.4 

225.0 

1.0 

22.0* 

Administrative cost used in 
calculations 

37 € 

191 € 

124 € 

777 € 

* While average costs were used for all other administrative measures, the median was used for yearly reports (BDR) 
due to the presence of an outlier (i.e. the maximum value of 225 hours per year) unlikely to be representative of costs 
of reporting requirements for most undertakings. 

From  time-based  costs,  monetary  costs  were  derived  based  on  an  average  of  ISCO  1  and 
ISCO 2 mean hourly wages in the EU in 2014 of €35.3, adjusted to 2014 prices. The figure 
includes non-wage labour costs, plus 25% overhead costs.154 In order to estimate total costs 
for  all  undertakings  over  the  period  2010-2017,  average  time  cost  data  were  multiplied  by 
number of occurrences when licences were requested, reports were received by the European 
Commission, etc. For this step, available data from the EC’s Licensing System was used (see 
Table III.5). 

Table III.5 Input data  collected from European Commission  Licensing System and used 
for total cost calculations. 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

TOTAL 

Number of 
licences 
requested  

Number of 
products and 
equipment 
licences 
requested 2014-
2017 

Number of (non-
NIL)* reports 
received  

4 669 

8 843 

12 131  15 355 

2 449 

2 471 

2 356 

2 076 

50 350 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

128 

477 

528 

541 

1 674 

172 

189 

185 

177 

165 

165 

172 

166 

1391 

154  ESTAT: Structure of Earnings Survey - NACE Rev 2: B to S not O. 

84 

 
 
 
                                                 
Number of 
registered users 
to the overall ODS 
system  

Number of 
laboratory 
registrations  

Number of quotas 
applications 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

TOTAL 

32 

76 

107 

283* 

110 

92 

93 

109 

902 

998 

1 007 

844 

587 

527 

468+ 

500+ 

537+ 

5 468 

53 

51 

56 

63 

61 

55 

60 

61 

460 

N.b.: Reports which were sent empty to the European Commission (‘NIL’ reports) were excluded from calculations.  

* Due to the launching of a new ODS Licensing System in 2013 the majority of the new request were re-registration 
requests from existing users 

+ Due to the launching of the new LABODS Registry in 2015 the majority of the requests for 2015-2017 are 
reregistration requests submitted from users of the old Laboratory-ODS-Database.   

The next step involved multiplying input numbers collected from the European Commission 
Licensing  System  by  average  unit  costs  to  obtain  total  costs  for  all  undertakings  between 
2010  and  2017,  differentiated  (where  relevant,  i.e.  reporting)  between  periods  before  and 
after  change  was  introduced  which  changed  the  cost.  In  order  to  calculate  the  cost  of 
Registration  of  exporters  and  repackagers  of  HCFC  produced  in  the  EU,  the  number  of 
registrations  for  importers/exporters  of  HCFC  (32  in  total)  was  estimated  based  on  lists  of 
undertakings and their import/export activities collected from European Commission systems 
and multiplied by the unit cost of registration for essential and analytical laboratory uses. 

85 

 
 
 
 
Table III.6 Total administrative costs for all undertakings between 2010 and 2017. 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

TOTAL 

Cost of Apply 
for licences 
(ODS Licensing 
System) 

Cost of 
Licences for 
import/export 
of products or 
equipment  

Cost of Report 
annually (BDR) 
2010-2012 

Cost of Report 
annually (BDR) 
2013-2017 

Cost of 
Registering to 
the ODS 
system 

Cost of 
Registration of 
exporters and 
repackagers of 
HCFC produced 
in the EU 

Cost of Apply 
for quota (ODS 
Licensing 
System) 

Cost of 
Register for 
essential 
laboratory and 
analytical uses 
(labODS 
registry) 

TOTAL 

176711 € 

334687 € 

459 130 € 

581 150 € 

92 689 € 

93 521 € 

89 169 € 

78 572 € 

1 905 628 € 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

4 844 € 

18 053 € 

19 984 € 

20 476 € 

63 357 € 

124670 € 

136992 € 

134 093 € 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

395 755 € 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

137 458 € 

128 139 € 

128 139 € 

133 575 € 

128 916 € 

656 227 € 

2979 € 

7076 € 

9 962 € 

26 348 € 

10 241 € 

8 566 € 

8 659 € 

10 148 € 

83 980 € 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2 979 € 

10103 € 

9722 € 

10 675 € 

12 009 € 

11 628 € 

10 484 € 

11 437 € 

11 628 € 

87 685 € 

92918 € 

93755 € 

78 580 € 

54 652 € 

49 066 € 

43 573 € 

46 552 € 

49 997 € 

509 091 € 

407 381€ 

582 232 

692 440 

811 617 

296 607 

302 336 

309 376 

299 737 

3,704,702€ 

As  regards  quota  application  for  different  uses,  ca.  45%  of  them  are  issued  to  laboratories, 
5%  for  process  agent  use,  20%  for  halon  remaining  uses  and  30%  for  feedstock  use. 
Laboratory  quota  applications  tend  to  more  burdensome  as  they  usually  involve  a  large 
number  of  different  substances.  Assuming  double  the  cost  for  laboratory  applications 
therefore, the total costs (87 685€) divide as follows: Laboratories 54 425€, Feedstock use 18 
141€, Halon use (12 094€) and Process agent use (3 024€). 

III.3.2 Calculation of costs for competent authorities of the Member States 

A similar process was carried out for competent authorities as for undertakings. Yearly cost 
data per measure was collected from competent authorities. As can be seen from Table III.7, 
many  costs  could  not  be  described  in  quantitative  terms  by  the  competent  authorities 
interviewed. 

86 

 
 
 
 
Table III.7 Time per measure for each Member State (hours p.a.) 

Member State 

Granting  production 
authorisations;  Arti 
10(7) 

Checking 
imports 
and 
exports  of  ODS 
by customs 

Reporting  to  the 
European 
Commission;  Art 
26 

Conducting 
inspections 
checks; Art 28 

or 

Czech Republic 

France 

Germany 

Italy 

Netherlands 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

163 

224 

2 011 

20 

40 

40 

201 

320 

168 

2 011 

the 
Promoting 
recovery,  recycling, 
and 
reclamation 
destruction 
of 
controlled 
substances; 
22(5) 

Art 

minimum 
Determining 
qualification  requirements  for 
personnel 
in  charge  of  the 
recovery, recycling, reclamation 
and  destruction  of  controlled 
substances; Art 22(5) 

8 

168 

80 

Only the data for ”Reporting to the European Commission; Article 26” was considered sufficient to make an overall estimate of costs. Although 
three  data  points  were  collected  for  ”Checking  imports  and  exports  of  controlled  substances  by  customs”  and  ”Conducting  inspections  or 
checks”, the difficulty for respondents in isolating costs of these activities specifically in relation to ODS, as these are often related to inspections 
for other reasons, made it impossible to make accurate estimates of time, particularly in the context of these same activities increasingly covering 
F-gases rather than ODS. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The next step involved multiplying the average unit cost of the reporting exercise, estimated 
at 33.3 hours per year (excluding the Netherlands’ estimated cost due to being considered an 
outlier,  in  particular  as  many  smaller  Member  States  have  less  relevant  activities),  by  the 
number  of  reports  submitted  by  all  Member  States  over  the  period  2010  to  2017  to  obtain 
total costs for all Member States between 2010 and 2017. Costs in € were obtained by using 
ISCO1 costs, i.e. €41.6 per hour. The number of reports was estimated at 220, which includes 
one  report  per  Member  State  per  year  minus  four  reports,  corresponding  to  the  four  years 
before Croatia acceded to the EU (before 2014).  

Table  III.8  Total  administrative  costs  (€)  for  all  competent  authorities  of  the  Member 
States for reporting to the European Commission; Article 26 between 2010 and 2017. 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

TOTAL 

37 440

*

37 440

*

37 440

*

37 440 

38 827 

38 827 

38 827 

38 827  305 068 € 

Reporting to 
the 
European 
Commission; 
Art 26  

*Before 2013, Member States also had to report on the use of methyl bromide for QPS use. However, as this use was prohibited in March 
2010 and emergency uses had not been authorised this can be assumed to have resulted only in very little administrative burden to Member 
States. 

III.3.3 Calculation of costs for EU public administrations 

The  number  of  full-time  equivalent  (FTE)  employees  assigned  to  tasks  related  to  the 
Regulation  was,  between  2010  and  2013,  3.5  FTE  employees,  while  in  2014  to  2017  the 
number of  FTE employees was 2.5. These values  were split  in  percentages across different 
tasks, and translated into working days  across the whole period 2010-2017. Monetary costs 
are presented which relate specifically to the IT systems and the purchase of external services 
(e.g. relevant consultancy support) as well as costs to the EEA. 

Table  III.9  Administrative,  implementation  and  enforcement  costs  for  the  European 
Commission between 2010-2017. 

Administrative, implementation and enforcement costs  

Time costs (days) 

Licensing requirements 

Quota limitations 

Registration requirements for laboratories 

Registration for other ODS companies and customs 

IT system, related to Licensing requirements, Quota limitations, 
Registration requirements for laboratories (cross-cutting) 

Reporting requirements 

Phase-out schedules 

Measures to identify illegal trade & support custom controls 

88 

1 056 

483 

583 

503 

1 076 

412 

141 

674 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Administrative, implementation and enforcement costs  

Time costs (days) 

Technical requirements for destruction 

Technical requirements for labelling 

Technical requirements for leakage and emission control and 
related Member States’ implementation measures 

Derogation decisions 

General correspondence and advice  

Ensuring data security and data protection 

Outreach activities (meetings and brochures) 

Assuring compliance in the Member States 

Providing access to documents 

40 

40 

40 

322 

191 

151 

91 

121 

111 

The  resources  needed  for  processing  quotas  may  be  further  subdivided  into  300 
(laboratories), 100 (feedstock uses), 67 (critical halon uses) and 17 (process agent uses) days 
following the reasoning explained above in section III.1. 

Table III.10 below presents implementation costs for the European Commission in monetary 
related to IT systems over the entire period between 2010 and 2017.  

Table III.10 Implementation costs related to IT systems for the European Commission 
between 2010-2017. 

IT implementation costs 

Monetary costs 

Development 

Maintenance 

Hosting 

Total 

866 600 € 

360 000 € 

195 000 € 

1 421 600 € 

Table III.11 below presents implementation costs for the European Commission in monetary 
costs  related  to  other  external  support  for  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  over  the 
entire period between 2010 and 2017.  

Table  III.11  Implementation  costs  related  to  other  external  support  for  the  European 
Commission between 2010-2017. 

Other implementation costs 

Monetary costs 

Other external support 

Total 

290 000 € 

290 000 € 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
External  support  costs  presented  in  the  table  above  relate  mainly  to  contracts  attributed  to 
consultants  for  reporting  data  collection  and  processing  before  the  implementation  of  the 
BDR, and studies such as presented in this report. 

Table  III.12  below  presents  implementation  labour  (time)  costs  for  the  European 
Environmental Agency in in terms of days over the entire period between 2010 and 2017.  

Table  III.12  Implementation  costs  for  the  European  Environmental  Agency  between 
2010-2017. 

Administrative costs 

Time costs (days) 

EEA in-house ODS thematic project management 

EEA in-house BDR Helpdesk support (both ODS and 
F-gases) 

EEA in-house IT project management 

Total 

598 

239 

302 

1 139 

III.13  below  presents 

Table 
the  European 
Environmental  Agency  in  monetary  related  to  IT  systems  over  the  entire  period  between 
2010 and 2017.  

(monetary)  costs 

implementation 

for 

Table  III.13  Implementation  costs  related  to  IT  systems  for  the  European 
Environmental Agency between 2010-2017. 

Administrative costs 

Monetary costs 

European Topic Centre (ODS thematic consultancy 
support) 

317 600 € 

External IT consultancy support for ODS webform 

157 000 € 

External IT consultancy support for BDR 
development and maintenance 

Total 

457 000 € 

931 600 € 

III.4 Calculation of costs for the counterfactual scenario 

The counterfactual analysis focused on the situation where the Montreal Protocol would have 
been implemented at the level of the 28 individual Member States, without the provisions of 
an EU-wide Regulation. The costs for this hypothetical scenario assumes that Member States 
would  create  their  own  set  of  measures  and  implement  their  own  systems  (licensing, 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
registration, reporting etc.)155. Table III.14 gives an overview over additional tasks that would 
have to be carried out by Members States in the counterfactual scenario. 

Multiplying  factors  to  estimate  costs  of  measures  which  would  apply  differently  in  the 
counterfactual scenario were determined by analysing available data on ODS from the EC’s 
ODS Licensing System and the European Environment Agency’s BDR systems. 

–  Licences: A key multiplying factor for the number of license is linked to intra-EU trade, as 
this  would  also  require  licences  in  the  counterfactual  scenario.  EU  data  on  sales  and 
purchases  within  the  EU  are  reported  in  an  aggregated  way  (volumes  per  substance)  to  the 
EEA’s  BDR.  In  order  to  estimate  a  number  of  intra-EU  transaction  which  would  need 
licences in the counterfactual scenario, the number of single transactions was estimated from 
this  sales  data  assuming  substance-specific  average  sizes  for  shipments  using  the  EC 
licensing  data.  It  was  concluded  that  the  amount  of  transactions  within  the  EU  is 
approximately 35 times higher than the amount of imports/exports from outside EU.  

–  Quotas:  Currently,  EU-based  importers  import  a  certain  volume  of  ODS  and  redistribute 
them  to  laboratories  across  the  EU,  without  the  need  for  these  laboratories  to  have  import 
quotas  themselves.  It  is  conservatively  estimated  that,  in  the  counterfactual  scenario,  up  to 
one  fourth  of  the  approximately  2  000  laboratories  operating  in  the  EU  (or  500  additional 
laboratories)  would  need  to  apply  for  quotas  on  a  yearly  basis  due  to  having  to  import 
themselves, including from other EU countries. The number of additional applications would 
thus  increase  by  an  estimated  500  quota  applications  per  year.  Quota  applications  for 
feedstock and process agents (current yearly licences 240) could go up to 5 times due to intra-
EU shipments to other companies or subsidiaries. Conversely, for halons it was assumed that 
there  would  be  little  change  due  to  the  few  distinct  actors  in  this  sector.  The  multiplying 
factor was determined as 10.87 for all quota applications according to table III.15. 

155  Assumed to be set up and run in the same way and with the same level of ambition as currently 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table  III.14  List  of  measures  for  administrations  of  the  Member  States  in  the 
counterfactual scenario. 

Measure 

Current situation: 
Implementation and 
enforcement costs from the EU 
Regulation 

Counterfactual scenario: 
Implementation and 
enforcement costs of national-
level legislation 

Licensing requirements 

Granting production authorisations; 
Article 10(7) 

Quota limitations 

Reviewing quota applications 
together with the European 
Commission 
Granting quotas 

Registration requirements 
for laboratories 

Not a cost for administrations of the 
Member States. 

Operating an import/export 
licensing system 
Approving production authorisations 
and licences 

Operating a quota system 
Granting quotas 

Operating a registration system 
Reviewing and approving new 
registrants 

Reporting requirements 

Handling reports from undertakings 
Reporting to the European 
Commission 

Operating a reporting system 
Handling reports from undertakings 
Reporting to the Ozone Secretariat 

Phase-out schedules 

Checking imports and exports of 
controlled substances by customs 

Checking imports and exports of 
controlled substances at each 
Member State’s borders by 
customs 

National inspection 
obligations 

Conducting inspections or checks 

Conducting inspections or checks 

Technical requirements for 
destruction 

Promoting the recovery, recycling, 
reclamation and destruction of 
ozone-depleting substances 
Determining minimum qualification 
requirements for personnel in charge 
of the recovery, recycling, 
reclamation and destruction of 
ozone-depleting substances 

Promoting the recovery, recycling, 
reclamation and destruction of 
ozone-depleting substances 
Determining minimum qualification 
requirements for personnel in charge 
of the recovery, recycling, 
reclamation and destruction of 
ozone-depleting substances 

Technical requirements for 
labelling 

Checking imports and exports of 
controlled substances by customs 

Checking imports and exports of 
controlled substances by customs 

Technical requirements for 
leakage and emission 
control and related Member 
States’ implementation 
measures 

Defining minimum qualification 
requirements for personnel involved 
for leakage checks 

Defining minimum qualification 
requirements for personnel involved 
for leakage checks 

Note:  Measures  shown  in  bold  are  additional  in  the  counterfactual  scenario  compared  to  the  current  situation  (cost 
transferred  from  the  EU  public  administrations  to  Member  States).  Other  measures  are  considered  to  be 
implemented/complied with in the same way in the counterfactual scenario as in the current situation (no significant 
change).  This  is  because  national  differences  already  exist  in  the  current  situation  or  because  the  counterfactual 
scenario assumes a same level of ambition. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
Table III.15 Increase of quota applications in the counterfactual scenario 

Current 
2017 

2010-

Counterfactual 2010-
2017 

Factor 

Lab quota 

220 

4 220 

Feedstock/PA quota  135 

Halon quota 

TOTAL 

105 

460 

675 

105 

5 000 

+500  more  applications 
per year (x8 years) 

x5 

No change assumed 

(5 000/460)=10.8695 

–  It is estimated that the companies affected by reporting would be 10 times more since all EU 

trade including for many laboratories is captured. 

–  Registration  requirements  for  laboratories  would  remain  the  same  (1  registration  in  its 

location country). 

–  Other obligations such as phase-out schedules, IT systems and data handling, as well as quota 
decisions were estimated as up to 28 higher due to necessary duplication of the existing EU-
wide system in all Member States. The same was assumed to be true for all other costs related 
to IT implementation and other external support. 

Table  III.16  gives  an  overview  of  expenditures  in  the  counterfactual  scenario  for  Member 
States. Tables III.17, 18 and 19 give additional IT and external assistance costs. Finally, table 
III.20 gives total expenditures expected for undertakings in the counterfactual scenario. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
Table III.16 List of assumptions and multiplying factors used to arrive at time costs for all Member States over the period 2010-2017 in 
the counterfactual scenario. 

Measure  

Time for EU 
administrations 
in the current 
situation 

Time for all 
Member States' 
administrations 
in the current 
situation 

Assumption in the 
counterfactual scenario 

Factor in the 
counterfactual 
scenario 

Explanation 

Licensing 
requirements 

1 056 

0 

Quota 
applications 

(Quota 
applications) 
Correspondence 

(Quota 
applications) 
Processing 

483 

161 

151 

0 

0 

0 

Member States individually 
process undertakings' licensing 
requests. 

Member States individually 
process undertakings' quota 
applications.  

Member States individually 
ensure correspondence with 
undertakings. 

35 times higher 
intra-EU trade in 
number of 
shipments than 
trade between EU 
and non-EU 
countries 
500 additional 
quotas applications 
yearly for 
laboratory and 
analytical uses. 

5 times more quota 
applications for 
feedstock and 
process agent uses. 

See specific factors 
below. 

10.87 more quota 
applications  

Member States individually 
process quota requests from 
undertakings. 

See specific factors 
below. 

See text above 

See Table III.14 above. 

More correspondence 
needed, matching the 
increased volume of quota 
applications. 

More processing needed, 
matching the increased 
volume of quota 
applications. 

94 

Resulting time 
for all Member 
States in the 
counterfactual 
scenario 

36 956 

11 107 

1 749 

1 640 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure  

Time for EU 
administrations 
in the current 
situation 

Time for all 
Member States' 
administrations 
in the current 
situation 

Assumption in the 
counterfactual scenario 

Factor in the 
counterfactual 
scenario 

Explanation 

Resulting time 
for all Member 
States in the 
counterfactual 
scenario 

(Processing) 
Drafting quota 
decision 

(Processing) 
Quota request 
processing 

(Quota 
applications) 
Adopting quota 
decisions 
Registration 
requirements for 
laboratories 
IT system, related 
to Licensing, 
Quotas, 
Registration 
(cross-cutting) 
Reporting 
requirements 
(Reporting 
requirements) 
Processing 
undertakings' 
reports 

75 

75 

171 

583 

1 076 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

412 

917 

70 

0 

Member States individually 
draft quota decisions following 
granting of requests on a 
yearly basis. 

28 times more 
(once more for 
each of the Member 
States) 

Each of the 28 Member 
States must draft national 
quota decisions. 

Member States individually 
process quota requests from 
undertakings. 

Member States individually 
adopt quota decisions on a 
yearly basis. 

No difference. 

Member State individually set 
up their own IT system. 

Member States individually 
process undertakings' reports 
at the same cost as the 
European Commission, except 
that Member States process a 
higher number of reports from 
undertakings because 
undertakings need to apply for 
licences for any shipment with 
another country, and therefore 
more undertakings come under 
the scope of reporting 
requirements. 

10.87 more quota 
applications  

28 times more 
(once more for 
each of the Member 
States) 

1 (no change) 

28 times more 
(once more for 
each of the Member 
States) 

See specific factors 
below. 

10 times more 
undertakings 
reporting annually 

Higher volume of quota 
applications increases 
processing effort. 

Each of the 28 Member 
States must adopt 
national quota decisions. 

Each laboratory registers 
in the same way it does in 
the current situation. 
Each of the 28 Member 
States needs to set up its 
own IT system. 

The number of 
undertakings reporting 
annually increases by the 
number of companies 
needing to report, roughly 
estimated to be 10 times 
larger due to being under 
national licensing 
obligations, but also for 
each branch of a company 
present in other Member 
States. 

2 112 

820 

4 787 

583 

30 128 

1 621 

704 

95 

 
 
 
 
Measure  

Time for EU 
administrations 
in the current 
situation 

Time for all 
Member States' 
administrations 
in the current 
situation 

Assumption in the 
counterfactual scenario 

Factor in the 
counterfactual 
scenario 

Explanation 

Resulting time 
for all Member 
States in the 
counterfactual 
scenario 

(Reporting 
requirements) 
Reporting to the 
Ozone Secretariat 

(Reporting 
requirements) 
Reporting to the 
European 
Commission 

Phase-out 
schedules 

Ensuring data 
security and data 
protection 

TOTAL TIME 
[hours] 

342 

N/A 

141 

151 

0 

33 

0 

0 

3902 

917 

Member States report to the 
Ozone Secretariat at the same 
cost as they do to the 
European Commission in the 
current situation. 

N/A 

N/A 

917 

Member States no longer need 
to report to the European 
Commission. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Member States individually 
update systems' information to 
implement to phase-out 
schedules. 

Member States individually 
ensure data security and data 
protection. 

28 times more 
(once more for 
each of the Member 
States) 

28 times more 
(once more for 
each of the Member 
States) 

Each of the 28 Member 
States needs update 
system information to 
implement phase-out 
schedules. 
Each of the 28 Member 
States needs ensure data 
security and data 
protection. 

3 942 

4 224 

88561 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table III.17 Table of IT implementation costs to administrations of the Member States in 
the counterfactual scenario compared to the current situation. 

IT implementation 
costs (€) 

Cost to EU 
administratio
ns in the 
current 
situation 

Cost to one 
Member 
State's 
administratio
n in the 
current 
situation 

Cost for all 
Member 
States' 
administrati
ons in the 
current 
situation 

Cost to one 
Member State 
in the 
counterfactual 

Cost to all 
Member 
States in the 
counterfactual 

Development 

866 600 € 

0 € 

0 € 

866 600 € 

24 264 800 € 

Maintenance 

360 000 € 

0 € 

0 € 

360 000 € 

10 080 000 € 

Hosting 

195 000 € 

0 € 

0 € 

195 000 € 

5 460 000 € 

Total 

1 421 600 € 

0 € 

0 € 

1 421 600 € 

39 804 800 € 

Additional cost in 
the counterfactual 

+1 421 600 €  +38 383 200 € 

Table  III.18  Table  of  other  external  support  costs  to  administrations  of  the  Member 
States in the counterfactual scenario compared to the current situation. 

Implementation 
costs (days) 

Cost to EU 
administratio
ns in the 
current 
situation 

Cost to one 
Member 
State's 
administratio
n in the 
current 
situation 

Time for all 
Member 
States' 
administrati
ons in the 
current 
situation 

Cost to one 
Member State 
in the 
counterfactual 

Cost to all 
Member 
States in the 
counterfactual 

EEA in-house ODS 
thematic project 
management 

EEA in-house BDR 
Helpdesk support 
(both ODS and F-
gases) 

EEA in-house IT 
project management 

598 

239 

302 

Total time 

1 139 

Additional costs in 
the counterfactual 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

598 

16 753 

239 

6 687 

302 

8 447 

1 139 

31 888 

+1 139 

+30 749 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  III.19  Table  of  other  implementation  costs  to  administrations  of  the  Member 
States in the counterfactual scenario compared to the current situation. 

Cost to EU 
administra-
tions in the 
current 
situation 

Cost to one 
Member 
State's 
administra-
tion in the 
current 
situation 

Cost for all 
Member 
States' 
administra-
tions in the 
current 
situation 

Cost to one 
Member State 
in the 
counterfactual 

Cost to all 
Member States 
in the 
counterfactual 

317 600 € 

0 € 

0 € 

317 600 € 

8 892 800 € 

157 000 € 

0 € 

0 € 

157 000 € 

4 396 000 € 

457 000 € 

0 € 

0 € 

457 000 € 

12 796 000 € 

Implementation 
costs (€) 

European Topic 
Centre (ODS 
thematic 
consultancy 
support) 

External IT 
consultancy 
support for ODS 
webform 

External IT 
consultancy 
support for BDR 
development and 
maintenance 

Total costs 

931 600 € 

0 € 

0 € 

931 600 € 

26 084 800 € 

Additional costs 
in the 
counterfactual 

+931 600 €  +25 153 200 € 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  III.20  List  of  assumptions  and  multiplying  factors  used  to  arrive  at  time  costs  for  all  undertakings  over  the  period  2010-2017  in  the 
counterfactual scenario.  

Measure  

Cost to 
undertakings 
currently 

Assumption in the 
counterfactual scenario 

Multiplying factor in the 
counterfactual scenario 

Explanation 

Licensing 
requirements 

1 905 628 € 

Quotas 

87 685 € 

Undertakings apply for licences 
and authorisations when 
importing or exporting between 
any two countries, EU and non-
EU. 

Undertakings apply for quotas for 
importing or exporting from or to 
EU and non-EU countries.  

35 times higher intra-EU 
trade in number of 
shipments than trade 
between EU and non-EU 
countries 

500 additional quotas 
applications yearly for 
laboratory and analytical 
uses. 
5 times more quota 
applications for feedstock 
and process agent uses. 

See text above  

See Table III.14 above. 

Resulting cost 
for all 
undertakings 
2010-2017 in 
counterfactual 
scenario 

66 696 984 € 

953 100 € 

Registration 
requirements for 
laboratories 

509 091 € 

No difference 

1 (no change) 

Each laboratory registers in the same way it 
does in the current situation. 

509 091 € 

Reporting 
requirements 

1 051 982 € 

Undertakings need to apply for 
licences for any shipment with 
another country, and therefore 
come under the scope of 
reporting requirements. 

10 times more 
undertakings reporting 
annually 

The number of undertakings reporting annually 
increases by the number of companies needing 
to report, roughly estimated to be 10 times 
larger due to being under national licensing 
obligations, but also for each branch of a 
company present in other Member States. 

10 519 824 € 

TOTAL [€] 

3 554 386 € 

78 678 999 € 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV: OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND COSTS 

Please note in the following table: 

-  Numbers in square brackets are amounts forecasted by the impact assessment of the Regulation 

-  Yellow denotes that expectations of the impact assessment have been met; Green means an improvement vs. expectations of the impact assessment; Red 

means that expectations in the impact assessment have not been met 

100 

 
 
 
Objectives 

Activities 

Relevant measures  
in Regulation 

Environmental impact 

ODP tonnes 

tonnes CO2eq 

Ensure the progress achieved and further reductions of ODS 

Maintain phase-out 
of EU consumption 
(MP) 

General prohibitions  

< 0 in 2010-2017 

Complete MB QPS 
phase-out 

2010 Prohibition on use 

Complete use of 
virgin HCFCs phase-
out 

2010 Prohibition on use 

0 used since 
3/2010, thus 
savings of 1700 
[220 p.a. 
forecasted but 
not proposed as 
measure] 
0 used since 
2010; savings of 
800 p.a. 

Costs to  
Member States 
(MS) 

Scale of  
+ (no cost) to 
+++++ (very high) 
Or  
Total costs for 
2010-2017 

Costs to 
Undertakings 

Cost to EU 
public service 

Further 
Remarks 

Person days for 
2010-2017 

Scale of  
+ (no cost) to  
+++++ (very high) 
Or  
Total costs for 2010-
2017 

++** 

++ 

322 
(exemptions & 
derogations) 
191  
(general advice) 

Scale of  
+ (no impact) 
to +++++ (very 
high) 

++ 
(+++++  
if considered 
vs. peak in 
1990s) 

+** 

+++/++++ 

5100 

141 

+++/++++ 

Ended in 2010 

++ 
(++++ if 
considered vs. 
past peak use) 

+** 

101 

Peak EU (MP) 
consumption 
was > 400,000 
ODP tonnes in 
1990s; 
Economic 
effects are 
small as most 
uses have been 
eliminated 
Ended in 2010 ; 
was not 
foreseen by 
impact 
assessment 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
+** 

+++/++++ 

Ended in 2015 

++ 
(++++ if 
considered vs. 
past peak use) 

2015  Prohibition on use 

Achieve phase-out 
of use of 
reclaimed/recycled 
HCFCs  

Ending import of 
products/equipment 

2015 prohibition 

Achieve HCFC 
production (MP) 
phase-out 

Phase-out schedule with 
endpoint 2019 

3 used since 
2015; further 
savings of 1000 
p.a. 
[1000 p.a.] 
0 used since 
2015; savings of 
up to 145 p.a. 
[145 p.a.] 
32 in 2017 from 
4000 in 2009 

++ 

+** 

++ 

++ 
(++++ if 
considered vs. 
peak in 1990s) 

+++/++++ 

Granting production rights 

+ 

Development/take up of alternatives and reduction of emissions of remaining uses 

Reduce Process 
agents use & 
emissions 

Annual limit of 1083 metric 
tonnes – quota applications 

Emission limit of 17 metric 
tonnes 

Reduce halon use & 
emissions 

Phaseout schedule until 2040 

Quota applications 

Use 351 ODP 
tonnes or 324 
metric tonnes 
(2017) 
Emitted 4.5 ODP 
tonnes or 4.1 
metric tonnes 
(2017)  
[20 OPD tonnes 
p.a.] 
Used 517 (2016) 
[500 p.a.] 

Emitted 71 (2016) 

+ 

+ 

102 

€0.003 MIO 

17 

+++/++++ 

€0.01 MIO 

67 

Industry moved 
to other 
refrigerants 

Ends in 2019; 
Peak EU (MP) 
production was 
> 700,000 ODP 
tonnes in 
1990s 

Annual max 
use < 400 
metric tonnes 
since 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reduce lab & 
analytical use & 
emissions 

Reduce feedstock 
use 

Banks 

Registration of laboratories 

Limit of 110 ODP use – quota 
applications 

Quota applications 
Complying with emission 
controls 

Complying with leakage and 
emission controls 
Qualification requirements 
for personnel 
Promoting recovery, 
recycling, reclamation, 
destruction 
Complying with technical 
requirements for destruction 

Identify new threats 

Production of 
remaining uses & 
new substances 

Company annual reporting 
incl. on new substances 

+ 

+ 

4* Gt CO2 
[Total 5 Gt 
CO2] 
Emitted 43* 
Mt CO2 
[Emitted 170 
Mt CO2] 

** 

** 

++/+++ 

++/+++ 

** 

          ++ 

Very small 
quantities: 0.2 
(2017) 
[<200 ODP p.a.] 

Use 45,000-
50,000 
Emitted 62 (2017) 
[600 p.a.] 
570,000* 
[Total 700,000] 

Emitted 6,000* 
p.a. 
[24,000 p.a.] 

Destroyed 6,000-
10,000 p.a. 

Production 
70,000-80,000 
p.a.  
(ca. 20,000 p.a. 
for new ODS - 
[20,600]) 

New ODS emitted 
3 (2017) [Emitted 
300 new ODS] 

MS reporting on (QPS), 
halons & illegal trade 

+++ 

++ 

++ 
0.3 MIO € 
[1.2 MIO €] 

103 

€0.5 MIO 

583 (processing 
registrations) 

€0.05 MIO 

300 (quotas) 

€0.02 MIO 
++/ +++ 

100 

++/ +++ 

40 

++ 

++/ +++ 

40 

€1.05 MIO 
[€0,38 MIO + €0,04 
MIO related to new 
ODS] 

1139 (staff) 
IT costs for EU-
wide system: 
€0.9 MIO 

[€0.56 MIO + 
€0.03 MIO for 
new 
substances] 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reporting to UNEP 

Lead by example & prevention/detection of illegal trade 

Licensing system 

Licences for import/export of 
equipment  

All other licences 

Illegal trade & 
Compliance 

National inspections 

Custom controls 

Complying with labelling 

TOTAL  

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

[Impact 
Assessment 
expected 
reduction to 
1000 licences 
p.a. in 2010] 

412 

Staff: 
1056 issuing 
licences  
+ 503 
registration 
+ 1076  
Use of IT system 
+ 151 
Data security 

IT costs for EU-
wide system: 
€1.4 MIO 

[1522] 

121 (assuring 
compliance in 
MS) 
674 

€0.06 MIO 
[Licensing of 
products/equipment 
considered minor] 
€1.9 MIO 

[<€0.5 MIO: 
€0.3 MIO (€1.3MIO 
and savings of 
€1MIO) for 
exempted uses 
& 
€0.17 MIO export 
licensing per 
shipment] 

+++ 
Up to 0.17 MIO€ 
per MS 
+++ 
Up to 0.17 MIO€ 
per MS 

++ 

++ 

[expected savings 
of admin costs 
€0.7 MIO] 

+ [€0.3 MIO] 
€3.7 MIO admin 
costs 
[€5.4 MIO baseline 
admin costs - €2 
MIO expected 
savings] 

3903 days (3 
full-time staff) 
[expected 
savings of 
admin costs 
€0.3 MIO] 

*Differences not necessarily linked to an improvement but to a more recent (and likely also more reliable) estimation 
**Costs linked to market surveillance such as inspection and customs control are listed separately 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V: SIMPLIFIED OVERVIEW - COMPARING CORE MEASURES UNDER THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL WITH MEASURES IN THE REGULATION 

Core Measures under the Montreal 
Protocol 

Montreal Protocol provisions for 

developed countries       

(Non-Article 5 parties) 

Provisions in the Ozone Regulation  
(Provisions from 2009 recast in italic) 

Is the Regulation ‘going beyond’ the 
Montreal Protocol? 

HCFC production phase-out schedule 
(for refrigeration and other non-
exempted uses) 

Between 2015 and 2020, the production of 
HCFCs cannot exceed 10% of 1989 
baseline levels. 

HCFC production shall be phased-out by 
2020. Thereafter up to 0.5% of baseline 
levels will be allowed until 2030 for serving 
refrigeration and air-conditioning 
equipment existing before 2020. 

Consumption of virgin HCFCs is phased out 
by 2020. 

HCFC consumption phase-out schedule 
(for refrigeration and other non-
exempted uses) 

Thereafter 0.5% of the baseline levels will 
be allowed for servicng refrigeration and 
air-conditioning equipment existing before 
2020 and a few other uses. 

The Protocol does not specify phase-out 
dates for non-virgin substances. 

HCFC production is gradually phased out 
from 2010. Full production ban starting 
from 31 December 2019. 

Only as regards production after 2020. The 
targeted use for which production would be 
allowed is prohibited in the EU (see below). 

The use of virgin HCFCs for servicing of 
refrigeration and air conditioning 
equipment is banned from 2010. 

The use of non-virgin HCFCs from 2015. 

The Commission may grant time-limited 
and case specific derogations to use non-
virgin substances until 31 December 2019. 

Earlier phase-out dates for virgin HCFCs 
and additional phase-out date for non-
virgin HCFCs. 

Exempted uses of virgin substances 

The following uses of virgin substances are 
exempted: 
- Feedstock use 
- Methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-
shipment use 
- Specific types of laboratory and analytical 
uses 
- Specific types of process agent uses in 
specific installations dating before 1999 

Same exemptions as under the Montreal 
Protocol, except for quarantine and pre-
shipment use of methyl bromide which has 
been banned since 2010. 

It is possible to grant time-limited 
derogations in case of emergency. 

The EU has not requested any so-called 

105 

Use  of  methyl  bromide  for  quarantine  and 
pre-shipment is not exempted in the EU 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Core Measures under the Montreal 
Protocol 

Montreal Protocol provisions for 

developed countries       

(Non-Article 5 parties) 

Provisions in the Ozone Regulation  
(Provisions from 2009 recast in italic) 

Is the Regulation ‘going beyond’ the 
Montreal Protocol? 

- Use of Methyl bromide may be authorised 
by the Parties on an annual basis under 
strict conditions for specific locations to a 
specific Party. 

critical use exemptions for methyl bromide 
use. 

Licensing requirements 

The Montreal Protocol requires a system for 
licensing the import and export of new, 
used, recycled and reclaimed substances 
(art. 4B) (bulk substances only). 
Parties are free to structure the system in 
the way considered most appropriate. 

Licences are required for import/export of 
virgin, recovered, recycled and reclaimed 
substances for each shipment. 

Licences are required also for 
import/export of products or equipment 

The licencing system covers products and 
equipment. 

Reporting on production, import, export 
and destruction is required annually per 
Party of the Montreal Protocol. 

Reporting requirements 

Reports on process agent uses should be 
submitted by Parties annually. 

Parties are invited to report voluntarily on 
illegal trade and halons. 

In addition to parameters necessary for the 
reporting under the Montreal Protocol, 
reporting annually on production, import, 
and export of ODS per undertaking. 

Reporting on new ODS 

106