Sections

The Montreal Protocol

Decisions

Annexes

Rules of Procedure

Sources of Further Information

General Index

Previous

Next

Working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee relating to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide

---

[Source: Annex I of the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties]

1. The schedule for the MBTOC assessment of critical-use exemptions will be revised as set out in the following table:

 


Actions	Indicative completion date
Parties submit their nominations for critical-use exemptions to the Secretariat	24 January
The nominations are forwarded to MBTOC co-chairs for distribution to the subgroups of appointed members	7 February
Nominations in full are assessed by the subgroups of appointed members. The initial findings of the subgroups, and any requests for additional information are forwarded to the MBTOC co-chairs for clearance	28 February
MBTOC co-chairs forward the cleared advice on initial findings and requests for additional information on to the nominating Party concerned and consult with the Party on the possible presumption therein	7 March
Nominating Party develops and submits its response to the MBTOC co-chairs	28 March
MBTOC meets as usual to assess nominations, including any additional information provided by the nominating Party prior to the MBTOC meeting under action 5 and any additional information provided by nominating Party through pre-arranged teleconference, or through meetings with national experts, in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of the terms of reference of TEAP, advises the nominating Party of any outstanding information regarding the information requested under action 3 for those critical-use nominations where it was unable to assess the nomination, and provides its proposed recommendations to TEAP	11 April
TEAP meets as usual in May, among other things, to assess the MBTOC report on critical-use nominations and submits the finalized report on recommendations and findings to the Secretariat	early May
The Secretariat posts the finalized report on its web site and circulates it to the Parties	mid-May
Nominating Party has the opportunity to consult with MBTOC on a bilateral basis in conjunction with the Open-ended Working Group meetings	early July
The nominating Party submits further clarification for the critical-use nomination in the “unable to assess” category or if requested to do so by the Open-ended Working Group, and provides additional information should it wish to appeal against a critical-use nomination recommendation by MBTOC	early August
MBTOC meets to reassess only those critical-use nominations in the “unable to assess” category, those where additional information has been submitted by the nominating Party and any critical-use nominations for which additional information has been requested by the Open-ended Working Group	late August
MBTOC final report is made available to Parties through TEAP	early October

2. Standard presumptions that underlie MBTOC recommendations of critical-use nominations need to be transparent and technically and economically justified, and should be clearly stated in its reports, and submitted to the Parties for approval at the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties, and thereafter on an annual basis. Reaffirming that the individual circumstances are the primary point of departure for an assessment of a nomination, MBTOC should not apply standard presumptions where the Party has demonstrated that the individual circumstances of the nomination indicate otherwise.
3. In the event that a nomination has been recommended for rejection or reduction as assessed under action 6 above, MBTOC will give the nominating Party the opportunity to send detailed corroborating information taking into account the circumstances of the nomination. On the basis of this additional information (and possible consultations with the nominating Party by pre-arranged teleconference) MBTOC will reassess this nomination.
4. Although the burden of proof remains with the Party to justify a request for a critical-use exemption, MBTOC will provide in its report a clear explanation of its operation with respect to the process of making determinations for its recommendations, and clearly state the approach, assumptions and reasoning used in the evaluation of the critical-use nominations. When cuts or denials are proposed, the description should include citations and also indicate where alternatives are technically and economically feasible in circumstances similar to those in the nomination, as described in decision Ex.1/5, paragraph 8.
5. Communications between the nominating Party and MBTOC will be based on the principles of fairness and due process, on the basis of corroborating written documentation, and will be properly reflected in the MBTOC and TEAP reports.
6. The role of the Secretariat should be central in regard to assistance in organizational, administrative and technical aspects of the process whereby the efficiency, operations and communications could be enhanced.
7. MBTOC is requested to develop and keep up to date an expanded matrix describing the conditions under which alternatives are technically and economically feasible. The matrix should include detailed references, such as citations of trial reports demonstrating this feasibility or case studies of commercial operation. Before application, the Parties should approve the matrix and any subsequent changes.
8. MBTOC, when holding its meeting, can consult the nominating Party through pre-arranged teleconference or through face-to-face discussions with national experts, in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of the terms of reference for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, in order to facilitate a transparent exchange of information and understanding between MBTOC and the critical-use exemption applicant.
9. It is recalled that paragraphs 9 (f) and 9 (g) of decision Ex.I/4 request TEAP to recommend an accounting framework and to provide a format for a critical-use exemption report.
10. Despite the opportunities given to the nominating Party to supply any additional information required in support of its nomination, MBTOC should categorize the nomination as “unable to assess” if there is insufficient information to make an assessment, and clearly explain what information was missing.

Previous

Next

Sections

The Montreal Protocol

Decisions

Annexes

Rules of Procedure

Sources of Further Information

General Index