Final Report: Second Session Of The First Meeting Of The Open-Ended Working Group

Distr.
GENERAL
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1(2)/4
4 September 1989
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

Second session of the first meeting Nairobi, 28 August - 5 September 1989

FINAL REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The second session of the first meeting of the open-ended Working Group
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol was held at UNEP headquarters in
Nairobi from 28 August to 5 September 1989 to review the reports of the four
assessment panels and integrate them into one synthesis report, and based on
this report, to prepare proposals for any adjustments or amendments to the
Montreal Protocol that would be needed, in accordance with decisions 3 and 5
of the First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol held in Helsinki
from 2 to 5 May 1989.

II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

A. Opening of the Meeting

2. The meeting was opened by the Executive Director of UNEP. In his opening
statement, Dr. Tolba congratulated the members of the panels and their
Chairmen for their skill and diligence in finalizing the four reports in a
timely manner, and he stated that the most important conclusion which had
resulted from those reports was that the Protocol must be strengthened in
order to protect our planet's ozone layer. After reminding delegates of the
commitments contained in the Helsinki and Hague declarations, and the
communique from the recent Paris Summit of Western leaders, Dr. Tolba
presented some of the key findings of the panel reports as they related to the
impacts of ozone depletion and the technical feasibility of taking the action
necessary to ensure ozone layer protection. Based on this important
information, he made the following specific recommendations for adjustments
and amendments to the Montreal Protocol for consideration by the participants:

First. Article 2: (Control Measures) should be adjusted as follows:

(1) Production of currently controlled chlorofluorocarbons should be phased out by the end of this century. Also, by the end of this century consumption should be reduced by 95 per cent. A complete phase-out of consumption should be achieved by the year 2005.

(2) Production and consumption of any other CFCs with an ozone depleting potential greater than 0.1 should be controlled by the Protocol over a specific time schedule.

(3) Production and consumption of the controlled halons should be reduced by 50 per cent by 1995 and a target date set for their complete phase-out.

(4) Methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride should be included in the Annex of controlled substances with a schedule for their phasing-out.

Second Sub-paragraph C of Article 3 (Calculation of Control Levels) and paragraph 2 of Article 4 Control of Trade with Non-Parties) should be amended to limit the period permitting export of controlled substances to non-parties to 1 January 1991 instead of 1 January 1993 as an incentive for non-parties to accede to the Protocol.

Third Paragraph 4 of Article 4 (Control of Trade with Non-parties) should be amended to introduce a prohibition of trade with non-parties in products made with or containing the controlled substances list of these products, as called for in Article 4 paragraph 3, should be approved by the Parties in 1991. Article 1 (Definitions) would have to be amended accordingly.

Fourth Article 7 (Reporting of Data) should be amended to require annual submission by the Contracting Parties of data on production, import and export of: .

(a) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs);

(b) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

3. In discussing his recommendations, the Executive Director stressed that
the provisions in his recommendations could be achieved. Further, he
maintained the importance of placing careful limits on the substitutes for
controlled substances to ensure that they would not contribute significantly
to the further depletion of the ozone layer, or to the global warming problem.

4. In closing, the Executive Director emphasized the importance of ensuring
Technology transfer to developing countries, and stated that it was imperative
that no economic penalties befall these countries setting out to follow the
present and strengthened Protocol, as their contribution to the problem had
been negligible.

5. The meeting was attended by delegations from the following 29 Contracting
Parties: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Canada, Denmark, European
Community, Ghana, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Egypt, Finland, France, German
Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Maldives, Mexico,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America and Venezuela.


6. In addition, the following 18 non-contracting countries were present:
Argentina, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti,
Gambia, India, Iraq, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Liberia, Malawi, Morocco,
Philippines, Poland, Sudan and Yugoslavia.

7. Eleven organizations participated. These were: the United Nations
Conference on trade and Development (UNCTAD), Palestine, Greenpeace
International, the European Council of Chemical Manufacturers Federations
Industry (CEFIC), Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA),
European Chlorinated Solvents Associations (ECSA/CEFIC), International Chamber
of Commerce (ICC), Shri Ram Fibres Ltd., Friends of the Earth International
(FOE).

B. Election of Officers

8. The Executive Director of UNEP proposed that in electing officers for
this session of the meeting, the participants should bear in mind that there
were two other sessions of this open-ended working group. The first session,
which had taken place in Nairobi from 21-25 August to develop modalities for
financial and other mechanisms, had had a bureau comprising a Chairman from
Finland; two Vice-Chairmen from Japan and Ghana; and Rapporteur from the
European Economic Community (EEC). Given that state of officers, he proposed
the following bureau for this session and the next, which was to take place in
Geneva from 18-22 September:

28 August 5 September 18-22 September

Chairman Canada Mexico
Vice-Chairman USA Norway
Vice-Chairman USST. Netherlands
Rapporteur Kenya Switzerland

9. The meeting agreed on the following officers:

Chairman: Mr. Victor Buxton, Canada;

Vice-Chairman: Ms. Eileen Claussen, USA;

Vice-Chairman Mr. Sergei Stepanov. USSR;

Rapporteur: Ms. K.N. Kinyanjui, Kenya.

III. SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS

10. Ambassador Ilkka Ristimaki, Permanent Representative of Finland to UNEP
and Chairman of the first session of the Working Group, which had discussed
the development of modalities for financial and other mechanisms to enable
developing countries to meet the requirements of the Montreal Protocol,
reported on the outcome of the 21-25 August meeting. (The report on this
session is contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1(1)/3).

11. Each of the Chairmen of the four assessment panels presented a review of
the key findings of their respective panel reports. This was followed by a
question and answer period. Dr. R. Watson introduced the Draft Synthesis
Report and also discussed the impact that various reduction and substitution
scenarios (control options) would have on the chlorine loading of the
atmosphere and the state of the ozone layer.

12. Following the questioning of the Panel Chairmen, the Chairman of the
meeting proposed a work schedule for the comprehensive consideration and
adoption of the Synthesis Report Ad Referendum.

13. Several delegations stressed the importance of the Synthesis Report and
one delegation indicated that the Synthesis Report, as a background document
for this Working Group, was an easy reference for the Parties to facilitate
their review of the adequacy of the control measures. Given its importance,
as well as the limited time available to consider the various subsidiary
reports in depth, some indicated that they might not be able to adopt the
Synthesis Report formally at this session. Some delegations also expressed
concern regarding their ability to determine the extent to which the Synthesis
Report reflected the individual panel reports in the short time available for
review. Some delegations expressed concern about whether the report had
adequately reflected the problems faced by developing countries.

14. Some delegations indicated that they were unable to evaluate the
Synthesis Report, since they had not had the opportunity to study the original
assessment panel reports. Moreover, they pointed out that while these reports
had been drawn up, very few experts from developing countries had been able to
participate in this work. They therefore requested that sufficient
flexibility be allowed so that they could put forward views that would cast
light on key elements in the assessment reports, in particular that of the
Economic Panel, in which only two experts from developing countries had
participated. These delegations reserved the right to make further
observations and comments on the Synthesis Report at the next session of the
Working Group.

15. Some delegations expressed a reservation in regard to the Economic Report
on the grounds of its insufficient clarity and objectivity. In the view of
these delegations, the fundamental point was that the production of CFC
substitutes, although technically feasible, was not feasible in purely
economic terms. Since the cost of the substitutes was very much higher than
those of CFCs, their production would be economically possible only to the
extent that the Parties undertook to discourage or prohibit the production of
CFCs, the costs and prices of which were very much more competitive.
Protection of the ozone layer by the mandatory replacement of CFCs by more
expensive substitutes would accordingly involve an additional cost that would
bear very much more heavily on the developing countries, which had been in no
way responsible for the utilization of CFCs. This economic burden would
impose an even heavier burden on the developing countries if the replacement
of CFCs by substitute products was speeded up.

16. These delegations that expressed this reservation in regard to the
Economic Report had pointed out that the conclusions contained in the second,
penultimate and ultimate paragraphs of Section 5.0 of the Synthesis Report did
not fully reflect some of the points that these delegations regarded as
tetrachloride. Some delegations expressed the same concerns about methyl
chloroform. Some delegations stressed that the results of calculations for
each proposed option to be submitted to the meeting of the Contracting Parties
in June 1990 should be included in the final version of the Synthesis Report.

22. The Working Group then began consideration of the Executive Director's
opening statement, starting with his recommendation to adjust Article 2 to
phase out the production and consumption of currently controlled CFCs. All
delegations were requested to submit any proposals for amendments in writing
to the Legal Drafting Group, whose report would reflect all proposals
received. The following paragraphs present an overview of the discussion
which ensued.

23. Regarding the Executive Director's first recommendation, some delegations
supported it as it had been presented or with only slight modifications.
However, several proposed phasing out the use of currently controlled CFCs
more rapidly. Some delegations pointed out in this connection that this
accelerated tempo of reduction should not apply to developing countries. Many
of these delegations noted that their countries supported the Helsinki
Declaration and therefore supported the phase-out schedule contained in that
document, which required a phase-out not later than the year 2000.
Additionally, several delegations expressed the view that it was not necessary
to have different phase-out periods for consumption and production of CFCs, as
the Executive Director had proposed.

24. Several delegations recommended a progressive or step-by-step reduction
in CFCs rather than the single reduction target that the Executive Director
had recommended. On this point, several other delegations explained that
while they could phase out CFCs by a specific date, adhering to a phase-down
schedule with specific intermediate steps would cause economic disruption or
would be difficult in the more centrally planned economies, or where
significant reductions prior to 1986 had already taken place. One delegation
however, suggested that a unilateral step-down schedule was fully consistent
with the spirit of the Montreal Protocol, which allowed Parties to take more
stringent regulatory action than that specifically required by the Protocol.

25. One delegation declared its readiness to participate in adjusting or
amending the Montreal Protocol. However, it expressed the view that an
expansion of the list of controlled substances and the acceleration of the
controls could be accomplished only if there were equal access by all
countries to economically feasible scientific and technological solutions, as
well as a comprehensive understanding of the health and environmental impacts
of substitutes and an unrestricted exchange of these testing results.

26. The Working Group then proceeded to consider the Executive Director's
second recommendation, by which all other CFCs with an ODP greater than 0.1
would be controlled over a specific time schedule to be determined by the
Parties. The Chairman explained that Dr. Tolba's intent in recommending this
change was to close any loopholes that might exist by virtue of the fact that
many other harmful CFCs had, or could be developed, and that such substances
would fall outside the jurisdiction of the present Protocol.
fundamental to an objective economic analysis, so that they felt bound to express a reservation in regard to those conclusions also. In regard to the second paragraph, these delegations had pointed out that it was not equitable to speak of a joint responsibility in economic terms; the conclusions should therefore be that the developed countries (which had caused and were mainly responsible for the problem) and the developing countries should co-operate in the protection of the ozone layer. In regard to the penultimate paragraph, these delegations had indicated that the conclusions should further state that, since the production of the substitutes was not feasible in strictly economic terms, the commercial production of such substitutes would necessitate the discouragement or prohibition of the production of CFCs, the costs and prices of which were much more competitive. In regard to the final paragraph, these delegations had stated that the conclusions should refer in the first place to the high costs of substitution, which bore more heavily on developing countries, to which any costs deriving from rapid reductions had to be added, which would impose an even heavier burden on the developing countries.

17. In response to these concerns, the Chairman requested that after detailed
discussion, the Parties accept that they had had a "preliminary reading" of
the report and agree to adopt it Ad Referendum; such adoption would include
the understanding that the Parties would have a further opportunity to consent
and modify the report if necessary at subsequent meetings. The Chairman then
asked Dr. Watson to proceed with an overview of the Synthesis Report in order
to facilitate the preliminary comprehensive consideration of the Report on a
point-by-point basis.

18. The Working Group proceeded to consider the Synthesis Report
point-by-point. Several delegations suggested deletions, clarifications and
other amendments to the report which were then considered by the drafting
group.

19. Some delegations suggested that the Synthesis Report should include a
discussion of the impact of CFCs on the global warming problem, and possible
impacts on sea level rise. Concern was voiced as to the appropriateness of
including information extraneous to the individual panel reports in the
Synthesis Report. It was decided that an oblique reference could be made in
the Synthesis Report to the contribution of CFCs to global warming, since
references to global warming potentials had been included in the various
reports. It was also noted that the entire issue of global warming was the
subject of a major project review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and was therefore more appropriately dealt with in that forum.

20. The Chairman requested the formation of a small drafting group chaired by
a delegate of Norway to draft and integrate proposals for amendments of the
report. He noted that any such amendments of the Synthesis Report had to stem
from the Panel Reports. However, it was agreed that additional technical
information that was not contained in the individual panel reports would be
included in the meeting report rather than in the Synthesis Report.

21. The Drafting Committee prepared a second draft of the Synthesis Report.
The Working Group, after further discussion and further amendment, adopted
this second draft Ad Referendum as Annex I to this report. Some delegations
expressed concern regarding the insufficiency of information available in the
panel report at this time about the feasibility of reductions of carbon

27. Several delegations suggested that rather than use an ODP number, the
Parties agree simply to control all fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons.
They considered that this was legally appropriate and would prevent the
development of new, potentially harmful CFCs. Several delegations proposed
that this be done according to the same time schedule as that proposed for
chemicals listed in Group I of Annex A.

28. Some delegations suggested the need to list each chemical specifically in
the Annex, and possibly also to list its relevant ODP. One delegation,
moreover, expressed the necessity of defining in the Montreal Protocol the
methodology for determining the exact values of ODPs and GWPs to enable
calculation of one single ODP or GWP value for the controlled substances, if
such values were utilized as indicators for determining whether a substance
should be controlled by the Protocol.

29. Several delegations proposed that in addition to all fully halogenated
chlorofluorocarbons, all chemicals with an ODP greater than 0.01 be regulated
so as to allow their use only in critical products and consumption areas, a
list of which should be developed by the Parties. These delegations submitted
a discussion paper on possible regulations on HCFCs and HFCs to facilitate
further debate on this issue.

30. The Working Group then took up the Executive Director's recommendation
for a 50 per cent reduction in halons by 1995, and a phase-out by a target
date to be set by the Parties. Several delegations agreed that there should
be at least a 50 per cent reduction by 1995. One delegation suggested that a
50 per cent reduction by 1997 would be more appropriate. Several delegations
proposed an elimination of production in 1995 in order to facilitate a
phase-out of halons by the year 2000, and, in the meantime, promote a
reallocation of halons to essential uses by recycling and other conservation
methods. Another stressed the importance of halons in critical uses such as
nuclear power plants and submarines, and expressed concern about proposals
that called for a total phase-out before there was knowledge of effective
substitutes for such uses. One delegation opposed making an exemption for
essential uses, as this might stifle the research necessary to develop
substitutes for these uses. One delegation proposed that either the
Secretariat conduct a survey, or delegations come to the 13-17 November
meeting of the Working Group prepared to identify specific "essential uses"
and to quantify such uses for the various chemicals, including halons.

31. Several delegations proposed a phase-out of halons by 2000 or 2005. One
delegation suggested a phase-down range that took into account the technical
and economic situation and essential needs of the individual countries. A
number of delegations noted that having a target date for phase-out was
important for appraising industry and facilitating orderly planning, phase-out
and research into alternatives. One delegation called for a 50 per cent
reduction by 1995 leading to a total phase-out by 2005 with identified
exemptions, if necessary, to be determined by the Parties on the basis of
future assessments. One delegation expressed serious doubts in regard to the
possibility of obtaining any advantages from curtailing the use of halons, as
well as in regard to the losses that might result from any such uncompensated
curtailment.


32. One delegate suggested that production and consumption of other halons
with an ozone-depletion potential greater than a specific value should be
controlled by the Protocol over a specific time schedule.

33. The Working Group then considered the Executive Director's fourth
recommendation, which called for the inclusion of carbon tetrachloride and
methyl chloroform in the Annex of controlled substances, as well as a schedule
for their phase-out. The Working Group agreed to consider carbon
tetrachloride and methyl chloroform separately. In respect of carbon
tetrachloride, several delegations proposed a specific phase-down schedule;
some advocated a schedule with intermediate steps, and several called for
total elimination by 1995 or the year 2000, except for use as a chemical
intermediate product or feedstock. One delegation proposed that carbon
tetrachloride be included in Group I of Annex A. Another delegation proposed
that fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons be included in Annex A.

34. In respect of methyl chloroform, several delegations proposed a phase-out
by 1995 or 2000. Several delegations supported an early freeze in 1991 on
production and consumption with a firm commitment to establish a schedule of
reductions at the meeting of the Parties in 1994. Several delegations
proposed a 50 per cent reduction in production and consumption before the
mid-1990s. While supporting their inclusion in Annex A, several other
delegations had difficulties in proposing specific timetables for reducing
and/or eliminating the production and consumption of these chemicals. one
delegation proposed that production and consumption of methyl chloroform be
stopped in 1992. Other delegations suggested that specific interim reduction
steps were feasible and desirable.

15. Some delegations expressed the views that a phase-out and reduction of
methyl chloroform should be considered only after further in-depth studies
became available. Some delegations expressed the same views on carbon
tetrachloride.

36. Following the discussion of the Executive Director's recommendations for
adjustments to Article 2, the Chairman opened the floor for other proposals
for changes to Article 2. Several developing countries stressed the
connection between Articles 2 and 5, in particular, the need to retain a
differential treatment for their countries. They also pointed out that it
would only be possible for their countries to fulfil their obligations under
the Montreal Protocol if technical and financial aid were to be provided by
the developed countries. They accordingly reiterated the desirability of
setting up a trust fund under the auspices of UNEP.

37. Several developing countries supported a specific amendment to Article 2
which would add the provision that any decisions effecting developing
countries as defined by Article 5 (1) could not be taken without the consent
of all such Parties present and voting.

38. The Working Group then considered the Executive Director's
recommendations regarding Article 3 (c) and Article 4 (2), which would limit
the period permitting export of controlled substances to non-parties to
1 January 1991 instead of 1 January 1993. The Chairman explained that his
understanding of the intent of this recommendation was to provide an
additional incentive for non-parties to accede to the Protocol. Some

delegations drew attention to the lack of uniformity in the approach of paragraphs (1), (2), (5) and (6) of Article 4 and to the discrimination against Parties operating under Article 5 (1) to be found in Article 4 (2) as currently worded. These delegations suggested that the wording of the various paragraphs of Article 4 referred to above be suitably amended. Some delegates pointed out that the prohibition in Article 4, paragraph 2, should apply to all Parties.

39. Some delegations supported the objective of advancing the date, but
stated that the issue needed further study before they could take a final
position. Other delegations opposed this recommendation, stating that it
would pose difficulties for countries that had not yet been able to ratify the
Protocol, and might in fact impede their signing. other delegations opposed
the recommendation on the grounds that implementing it in so limited a time
would be very difficult.

40. The Working group then proceeded to consider the Executive Director's recommendations for amendments to paragraph 4 of Article 4, in which he had recommended a prohibition of trade with non-parties in products made with, or containing the controlled substances. He further recommended that a list of these products, as called for in Article 4 paragraph 3, should be approved by the Parties in 1991, and that Article 1 (Definitions) be amended accordingly.

41. Several delegations supported this recommendation, noting that it would
serve as a further incentive for non-parties to accede to the Protocol.
However, some others objected, stating that the recommended change would
restrict both import and export and thereby create the potential for great
economic disruption. Further, one delegation stated the belief that this
added restriction would yield no environmental benefit, as the exported
products contained CFCs that were already counted under the control provisions
of the Protocol.

42. The Working Group then considered the Executive Director's final recommendation, which required annual submission of data on the production, import and export of HCFCs and HFC9. One delegation observed that the requirement to report data on HCFCs and HFCs was already contained in a decision adopted at the First Meeting of the Parties to the Vienna Convention in Helsinki in April 1989; consequently, it was suggested that such an amendment was not necessary.

43. The observer for one industrial organization expressed its willingness to provide production data on HCFCs from the EEC, Japan and the USA on a compound-by-compound basis. It also agreed to attempt to integrate these with data from other world areas. Several delegations welcomed this proposal as providing the opportunity for an agreed and flexible method of developing data collection and monitoring. However, one delegation, while welcoming this proposal, stated that the responsibility for reporting should not be assumed by industry, as it was the Parties' responsibility to most the reporting requirements.

44. Another delegation suggested that the requirement for reporting should be specified in the Protocol, along with a list of each substance in the Annex to be reported on. Another delegation proposed that all potential ozone-depleting substances, including the HCFC9, should be subject to controls and reporting requirements and should be listed individually in the Annex to the Protocol.


45. The feasibility of obtaining data on methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and other non-fluorocarbon ozone-depleting substances was discussed. Several delegations expressed the view that data on these chemicals should also be reported. An observer from an industrial organization indicated that production data for methyl chloroform were being collected in a manner similar to the process proposed for the HCFCs, and that a similar process for carbon tetrachloride was under consideration.

46. The Scientific Panel then discussed the scientific need for data, pointing out the high confidence of the scientific community in the calculated lifetimes and ODPs of various chemicals. It also noted both the importance of having accurately reported data on chemical production, as well as specific atmospheric observations. these were needed with regard to projected substitutes for controlled substances. The Panel offered to provide the Secretariat with a list of their special reporting needs.

47. Several delegations from developing countries expressed their desire to ensure that there would continue to be a differentiated treatment of the developing countries in any new phase-out scheme. One delegation requested that developing countries be given an additional 10 years to comply with the terms of the Protocol. Another proposed that a decision on which control requirements should be applied to developing countries should await a meeting in 1999, at which the status of the transfer of technology necessary to achieve a phase-out could be assessed. The same delegation proposed that the developing countries be allowed to go straight to the stabilized technology instead of having to go through intermediate bridge technologies that were likely to be replaced. The delegation stated that such slightly delayed transition, say by the year 2015, would not have a sizeable impact on the chlorine levels in the atmosphere, as mentioned in one of the scientific scenarios presented.

48. Several delegations stressed the need for specific mechanisms to facilitate technology transfer, and the access of developing countries to safe and technologically and economically feasible substitutes, as well as to financial assistance. In this regard, several delegations proposed specific amendments to address these concerns.

49. One delegation stated that there was an inequity of the withdrawal procedures for developing and developed countries. Several delegations supported an amendment to Article 19 to address this concern.

50. One delegation proposed that regional economic integration organizations implementing the provisions of Article 2.8 (a) satisfy the terms of Article 7.2 by providing data for the organization as a whole on trade between the organization and States that were not members of the organization. Another delegation opposed this view and expressed its belief that the obligations of individual Parties could not be subsumed by a parent organization.

51. In view of the proposed reduction and phase-out of CFCs, one delegation proposed to amend Article 2.5 to allow industrial rationalization between countries with a calculated level of production above 25 kilotonnes (i.e. remove the reference to 25 kilotonnes) and to remove the reference to rationalization between Parties. One delegation expressed a reservation about this proposal.


52. The Chairman then provided an opportunity for the Science Panel to
respond to some questions that had been posed earlier. Of particular note was
the Science Panel's determination that if developing countries were to ' consume
controlled substances to the limit currently allowed under the Montreal
Protocol, these emissions would exceed present global emissions. In response,
the delegations of some developing countries emphasized that this scenario was
an extremely unrealistic one that was unlikely to occur. The delegation of
one developing country further noted that it had no intention of producing up
to the limit allowed by the Montreal Protocol.

53. Several delegations expressed the importance of facilitating adequate
information on equipment and devices containing one or more of the controlled
substances or requiring such substances for operation before exporting such
equipment to Parties operating under Article 5. The proposal to lower the
level, however, was opposed by other developing country delegations.

54. The Working Group reviewed the Report of the Legal Drafting Group and, after discussion and amendments, the report was approved. Proposals for adjustments and amendments discussed during this session and provided to the Legal Drafting Group are included in its Report, which is an annex to this document.

55. One final proposal which gained the unanimous support of all delegations was a tribute to the members of the Assessment Panels as follows: "The delegates to the Working Group express their appreciation to the Panel members, experts and reviewers for their contributions to the various Panel Reports. In particular, appreciation is expressed for the leadership of the Panel Chairpersons."

Annex I

AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE OPEN ENDED WORKING GROUP OF
THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL SECOND
SESSION OF THE FIRST MEETING

1. Opening of the meeting.

2. Organization of the meeting:

(a) Election of officers;

(b) Adoption of the agenda.

3. Presentation of Executive Summaries of the reports of the Assessment Panels:

(a) Panel for Scientific Assessment
(Dr. Daniel Albritton);

(b) Panel for Environmental Impact Assessment
(Dr. J. Van der Leun);

(e) Panel for Technical Assessment
(Mr. Victor Buxton and Dr. Lambert Kuijpers);

(d) Panel for Economic Assessment
(Mr. George Strongylis),

4. Draft Synthesis Report
(Dr. Robert Watson).

5. Note by the Executive Director.

6. Report of the results of the work of the first session of the first meeting of the open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol which was held from 21-25 August at Nairobi to develop modalities for financial and other mechanism to enable developing countries to meet the requirements of the Montreal Protocol. (Ambassador Ilkka Ristimaki, Permanent Representative of Finland to UNEP and Chairman of the session).

7. Questions by the delegates for response by the Panel Members.

S. Consideration and adoption of the Synthesis Report.

9. Consideration of options for adjustments or amendments to the Montreal Protocol:

(a) Article 2, Control Measures;

(b) Article 3, Calculation of Control Levels;

(c) Article 4, Control of Trade with Non-Parties;

(d) Article 7, Reporting of Data.

10. Preparation of recommendations and specific language for adjustments or amendments to the Montreal Protocol for discussion and submission to the Parties at their second meeting.

11. Other matters.

12. Adoption of the report.

13. Closure of the meeting.


Annex II

SECOND DRAFT SYNTHESIS REPORT
(Integration of the four assessment panels reports by a drafting group)

1 September 1989

Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Assessment Summaries
2.1 Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric ozone
2.2 Environmental Effects ........................
2.3 Technology Review ............................
2.4 Economics Implications .......................

3.0 Reporting and Systematic Observation Requirements

4.0 Conclusions

Appendix A

Example Scenarios I
Transient Scenarios

Introduction Objectives

Scenarios

Current Montreal Protocol

CFC Phaseout, no controls on methyl chloroform (50
per cent substitution of CFCs with HCFCs with an
average ODP of 0.05) 35
methylchloroform (50
per cent substitution of CFCs with HCFCs with an
average ODP of 0.05) 36
CFC Phaseout, phaseout of both carbon tetrachloride
and methyl chloroform (50 per cent substitution of
CFCs with HCFCs with an average ODP of 0.05) 37
CFC Phaseout, phaseout of both carbon tetrachloride
and methyl chloroform (20 per cent substitution of CFCs
with HCFCs with an average ODF of 0.02) 38


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer entered into force on 1 January 1989. Article 6 of the Protocol: Assessment and Review of Control Measures requires that

"Beginning in 1990, and at least every four years thereafter, the Parties shall assess the control measures provided for in Article 2 on the basis of available scientific, environmental, technical, and economic information. At least one year before each assessment, the Parties shall convene appropriate panels of experts qualified in the fields mentioned and determine the composition and terms of reference of any such panels. Within one year of being convened, the panels will report their conclusions, through the Secretariat, to the Parties."

On 17-18 October 1988, at The Hague, Netherlands, in compliance with Article 6 and in anticipation of the coming into force of the Protocol, an Ad Hoe Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts for the Harmonization of Data on Production, Imports, and Exports of Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer established four review panels and outlined their terms of reference and timetables for completing reviews of available scientific, environmental, technical, and economic information. This process was approved by the Parties to the Protocol at their first meeting in Helsinki, Finland On 2 - 5 May 1989. The Parties also confirmed UNEP as the Secretariat for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol.

The reports of the assessment panels contain the main conclusions reached by those panels and represent the judgement of several hundred experts of appropriate disciplines and selected from 21 developed and 9 developing countries. The reports of each of the four panels incorporated an extensive peer-review process in their original language (English). They will be published and distributed by UNEP in the latter part of 1989. Copies will be made available to Parties to the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol; all other member states of the United Nations; and to interested organizations, institutions, and individuals worldwide.

The panel reports were chaired as follows:

- The report of the Ozone Scientific Assessment Panel, chaired by
Dr. Robert Watson and Dr. Daniel Albritton (United States of America)
136 scientists from 25 countries contributed to the preparation and
review of the report (87 scientists from 15 countries prepared the
report, and 78 scientists from 23 countries participated in the peer
review process). World Meteorological Organization (WHO) assisted in
this effort.

- The report of the Environmental Effects Panel chaired by Dr. Jan van der Leun (The Netherlands) and Dr. Manfred Tevini (Federal Republic of Germany). 48 scientists from 17 countries participated in the preparation and peer review of the report (20 scientists from 8 countries prepared the report, and 28 scientists from 12 countries peer reviewed the report).


- The report of the Technology Review Panel chaired by Mr. Victor Buxton (Canada) and Dr. Stephen Andersen (United States of America). 110 experts from 22 countries prepared the report. An even greater number, involving experts from additional countries, participated in the peer review process.

- The report of the Economic assessment Panel chaired by Mr. George
Strongylis (European Economic Community), and co-chaired by
Dr. Stephen Andersen and Mr. John HoffvAn (United States of America).
24 experts from 12 countries prepared the report that was peer
reviewed by 25 experts from 18 countries.

The Technology Review Panel Report is a summary of five-detailed Technical Options Reports prepared by international subcommittees of sector specific experts. The five technical reports are:

- Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and 'neat Pumps, chaired by Dr. Lambert Kuijpers (The Netherlands),

- Rigid and Flexible Foams, chaired by No. Jean Lupinacei (USA)

- Electronic, Degreasing and Dry Cleaning Solvents, chaired by Dr. Stephen Andersen (USA)

- Aerosols, Sterilants and Miscellaneous Uses of CFCs, chaired by Mrs. Ingrid Kokeritz (Sweden), and

- Halon Fire Extinguishing Agents, chaired by Mr. Gary Taylor (Canada).

This document is based on the key findings of the four Panel reports (science, environmental effects, technology, and economies).

2.0 ASSESSMENT SUMMARIES

The major findings of the four assessment reports are summarized in the following subsections.

2.1 Scientific assessment of Stratospheric Ozone

Recent Findings

Remarkable progress has been made in stratospheric ozone science in the past few years. There have been highly significant advances in the understanding of the impact of human activities on the Earth's protective ozone layer. Since the Montreal Protocol was signed, there have been four major findings each of which heightens the concern that chlorine- and bromine-containing chemicals can lead to a significant depletion of stratospheric ozone:

- Antarctic Ozone Hole: The weight of scientific evidence strongly indicates that chlorinated (largely man-made) and brominated chemicals are primarily responsible for the recently discovered substantial decreases of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica in springtime.


- Perturbed Arctic Chemistry: While at present ozone changes over the Arctic are not comparable to those over the Antarctic, the same potentially ozone-destroying processes have been identified in the Arctic stratosphere. The degree of any future ozone depletion will probably depend on the particular meteorology of each Arctic winter and future atmospheric levels of chlorine and bromine.

- Long-Term Ozone Decreases: The analysis of the total-column ozone data from ground-based instruments show measurable downward trends from 1969 to 1988 of 3 to 5.5 per cent in the northern hemisphere (30 to 640N latitudes) in the winter months that cannot be attributed to known natural processes.

- Model Limitations: These findings have led to the recognition of major gaps in theoretical models used for assessment studies. Assessment models do not simulate adequately polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) chemistry or polar meteorology. The impact of these shortcomings for the prediction of ozone layer depletion at higher latitudes is uncertain. Not all models include consideration of the effects of carbon dioxide atmospheric accumulation. Those models that do include this effect show somewhat lower ozone depletion compared to those that do not include the effect.

These and other findings are based upon the results from several major ground-based and aircraft field campaigns in the polar regions, a reanalysis of ground-based ozone data from the past thirty one years, a reanalysis of satellite ozone and PSC data, laboratory studies of gas-phase and surface-induced chemical processes, and model simulations incorporating these new laboratory data and observations.

Other Important Scientific Findings:

- Table 1 shows calculated values of the Ozone Depleting Potentials (ODP) and Global Warming Potentials (GWP)for the CFCs and halons currently included in the Montreal Protocol, carbon tetrachloride (carbon tetrachloride), methyl chloroform (CH3CC13) and potential HCFC and HFC substitutes. In general, the ODPs and GWPs of the potential substitutes and methyl chloroform are significantly lower than those of the controlled substances because of their shorter atmospheric life times. Even for the lower ODP and GWP chemicals, the volume of use needs to be considered.

Implications

The findings and conclusions from the intensive and extensive ozone research over the past few years have several major implications as input to public policy regarding restrictions on man-made substances that lead to stratospheric ozone depletion:


- The scientific basis for the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone layer was the theoretical prediction that, should CFC and halon abundances continue to grow for the next few decades, there would eventually be substantial ozone layer depletion. The research of the last few years has demonstrated that actual ozone loss due to man-made chlorine (i.e., CFCs) and bromine has already occurred, i.e., the Antarctic ozone hole.

- Even if the control measures of the Montreal Protocol were to be implemented by all nations, today's atmospheric abundance of chlorine (about 3 parts per billion by volume (ppbv)) will at least double to triple during the next century. If the atmospheric abundance of chlorine reaches about 9 ppbv by about 2050, ozone depletions of 0-4 per cent in the tropics and 4 - 12 per cent at high latitudes would be predicted, even without including the effects of heterogeneous chemical processes known to occur in polar regions, Which may further increase the magnitude of the predicted ozone depletion.

- The surface-induced, PSC-induced chemical reactions which cause the ozone depletion in Antarctica and also occur in the Arctic, represent additional ozone-depleting processes that were not included in the stratospheric ozone assessment models used to guide the Montreal Protocol. Recent laboratory studies suggest that similar reactions involving chlorine compounds may occur on sulfate particles present at lower latitudes, which could be particularly important immediately after a volcanic eruption. Hence, future global ozone layer depletions could well be larger than originally predicted.

- Large-scale ozone depletions in Antarctica appear to have started in the late 1970s and were initiated by atmospheric chlorine abundance of about 1.5-2 ppbv, compared to today's level of about 3 ppbv. To return the Antarctic ozone layer to levels of the pre-1970s, and hence to avoid the possible ozone dilution effect that the Antarctic ozone hole could have at other latitudes, one of a limited number of approaches to reduce the atmospheric abundance of chlorine and bromine is a complete elimination of emissions of all fully halogenated CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform, as well as careful considerations of the HCFC substitutes. Otherwise, the Antarctic ozone hole is expected to recur seasonally, provided the present meteorological conditions continue.

2.2 Environmental Effects

With depletion of the ozone layer, the intensity of the UV-B radiation reaching the ground increases and the wavelength composition is shifted to shorter wavelengths. Most effects of ultraviolet radiation depend strongly on the wavelength, with the largest impacts associated with the shorter wavelengths.


UV-B radiation is known to have a multitude of effects on humans, animals, plants, and materials. Most of these effects are damaging. The knowledge required for quantitative predictions of the effects, however, is available only for a few of these damages. Even with the present limited level of quantification, it is clear that some of these effects could pose significant environmental threats.

The potential effects of increased levels of UV-B radiation due to ozone depletion include the following:

Human Health

Exposure to increased UV-B radiation can cause suppression of the body's immune system, which might lead to an increase in the occurrence or severity of infectious diseases such as herpes, leishmaniasis and malaria and a possible decrease in the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

Enhanced levels of UV-B radiation can lead to increased damage to the eyes, especially cataracts the incidence of which is expected to increase by 0.6 per cent per 1 per cent total column ozone depletion. Therefore, each 1 per cent total column ozone depletion is, in the long run, expected to lead to a worldwide increase of 100,000 blind persons due to UV-B induced cataracts, other things being equal (e.g. population, age distribution, 'availability of medical care, etc.). Damage to the eyes and possible increases in incidence or severity of infectious diseases would be serious, particularly where these diseases occur most, even now.

Von-melanoma skin cancer will increase with any long-term increase of the surface UV-B radiation, without a threshold value. Every 1 per cent decrease of total column ozone is predicted to lead to a 3 per cent rise of the incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer; other things being equal - e.g. the exposure of people to sunlight. There is concern that an increase of the more dangerous cutaneous malignant melanoma could also occur. The current incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer is much higher than for melanoma skin cancer, but the current annual number of deaths attributable to the two types of cancer is about the same. Increase of skin cancer would mainly affect people with little protective pigment in their skin, i.e. light-skinned people.

Terrestrial Plants

Of the plant species investigated (approximately 80 varieties of 12 species), about half were found to be sensitive to enhanced UV-B radiation, the impact being that plants typically have reduced growth and smaller leaves. This sensitivity applies, for instance, for certain varieties of soybeans and wheat. In some cases, these plants also show changes in their chemical composition, which can affect food quality and the availability of mineral nutrients. Within species, varieties have different UV-B sensitivities, as is also demonstrated in soybeans. While some varieties of soybeans are not sensitive at all, increased UV-B reduces food yield by up to 25 per cent in certain economically important varieties, for exposures simulating 25 per cent total column ozone depletion. Even small decreases in food production from UV-B effects on agriculture would significantly affect people in areas where food shortages occur even now. There is an urgent need for development of biotechnology for replacement of sensitive crops.

Aquatic Ecosystems

Increased UV-B irradiance has been shown to have a negative influence on aquatic organisms, especially small ones such as phytoplankton, zooplankton, larval crabs and shrimp, and juvenile fish. Because many of these small organisms are at the base of the marine food web, increased UV-B exposure may have a negative influence on the productivity of fisheries.

Increased exposure to UV-B radiation could lead to decreased nitrogen assimilation by prokaryotic microorganisms and, thereby, to a possible nitrogen deficiency for rice paddies. The potential loss in yield has not yet been quantified.

Since phytoplankton fix carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, damage to phytoplankton by increased UV-B radiation would indirectly contribute to the radiative forcing of predicted global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

Tropospheric Air Quality

Enhanced levels of surface UV radiation could cause increased atmospheric abundances of several chemically reactive compounds, notably ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and acids. It is also possible that the atmospheric abundance of particulates could be enhanced. This would aggravate the environmental pollution problems already present in many urban and rural areas and increase the negative influences of air pollution on human health and agricultural productivity. assuming that existing pollution controls are not strengthened.

Materials Damage

Exposure to UV radiation is a significant cause of degradation of many materials, particularly plastics that are used outdoors. The impact is mainly economic. The increased damage will be most severe in tropical locations, where the degradation may be enhanced by high ambient temperatures and sunshine levels.

Global Warming

The present atmospheric abundance of controlled substances contribute 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the anthropogenic radiative forcing of global warming.


Key Areas of Uncertainty

The key areas of uncertainty are in the following areas:

- Quantification of the primary effects on food production and quality, on forestry, and natural ecosystems.

- Clarification and quantification of influences on human health, especially the immune system, and occurrences of melanomas and cataracts.

- Effects on biota of the enhanced UV radiation during the Antarctic springtime ozone depletion.

2.3 Technology Review

The goal of the Technology Assessment Panel was to determine and quantify the technical feasibility of reductions of ozone depleting substances.

Technical feasibility in this respect is defined as the possibility to

provide substitutes or alternative processes without substantially affecting
properties. performance and reliability of goods and services from a technical
and environmental point of view. I

Taking into account the current state of the technological development, it is technically feasible to phase down the production and consumption of the five CFCs controlled under the Montreal Protocol, as well as carbontetrachloride, by at least 95 per cent by the year 2000.

The remaining demand after the year 2000 would be from refrigeration and air conditioning (principally automotive) systems that were designed to use CFCs and are still in service (and not amenable to near "drop in" substitutes) and minor uses. These remaining uses are expected to be eliminated within 5-10 years thereafter. Figure 1 shows the technically feasible phase-down projections for any year for each of the major use categories.

It is assumed that HFCs and HCFCs currently under testing will be environmentally acceptable and commercially available. The time scale for full commercialization for some chemicals remain uncertain at this time but chemical manufacturers are working on many chemical substitutes. Three Programmes for Alternative Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing (PAFT I, II and III) and the programme AFEAS on the environmental acceptability have been defined; the results will be published as soon as they are available in open literature. Final results of testing of these substitute chemicals will not be available for three or more years.

The key conclusions from the technology assessment are:

- The refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pump sector represents 25 per cent of global consumption of the controlled CFCs. Globally, under 8 per cent is used for food preservation and developing countries' share of this is less than one quarter. Domestic refrigeration worldwide accounts for 1 per cent. Evidence suggest that for developing countries, a 30 per cent annual growth rate in the manufacture of domestic refrigerators can be assumed. Thus demand from developing countries (including India and the Peoples' Republic of China) for CFC-12 for refrigerators only, will at the year 2000 represent less than 2 per cent annually of the global 1986 CFC consumption level. The assessment also assumes recycling and reuse of 60 per cent of existing CFC refrigeration fluids in the year 2000.

It is necessary to distinguish between new and existing equipment. New designs using alternative refrigerants are possible in many, but not all subsectors now, but existing equipment will have to be upgraded and replaced slowly, with full substitution taking up to 15-20 years. One major problem is that automotive air conditioning represents a large use of CFCs and some automobiles produced before a switch to new environmentally acceptable refrigerants will be in use well after the year 2000.

- 25 per cent of the world's CFCs are used in foam production. It is technically feasible to reduce consumption by 60-70 per cent by 1993 with a phase out of at least 95 per cent by 1995. These reductions are dependent to a large degree on the availability of new HCFCs.

- CFC-113 solvent use in electronic, precision, metal, and dry cleaning represents about 16 per cent of the global consumption of the controlled CFCs. There is no single universal substitute for all CFC-113 solvent uses, but rather a myriad of options. The most predominant use is in the electronics subsector. All CFC-113 solvent uses can be phased out by the year 2000. The CFC-113 phase out is only partially dependent on the availability of HCFCs, due to the large variety of non-HCFC alternatives including: product and process substitutes, water cleaning, hydrocarbons (e.g., terpenes, alcohol, and white spirits), cleaning processes that do not require the use of solvents, etc.

- Sufficient technical options exist now to phase out CFC use as aerosol propellants with the exceptions being some medical products and other minor uses. CFC-12 use in sterilization can be substantially reduced using existing alternatives and can be phased out by 1995 in developed countries and somewhat later in developing countries. In food freezing applications, substitution is technically feasible and several techniques are commercially available.

- Methyl Chloroform (1,1,1 Trichloroethane) is a widely used all purpose solvent. It has an ozone depletion potential of between .10-.16 and a lifetime of 6.3 years. Because of its large production, it contributes to current ozone depletion to about the same degree as CFC-11, CFC-12 or carbon tetrachloride, since much of the depletion associated with the current production and consumption of these longer-lived gases lies in the future. Substitutes currently exist in each of the three major uses of methyl chloroform: cleaning solvent; adhesives; and aerosols. Reductions of 90-95 per cent of current usage appear feasible.

- Carbon tetrachloride has an Ozone Depletion Potential of 1.0-1.2. It is primarily used as a feedstock for CFCs, but may also be used for example, as a constituent of pesticides, as a solvent in the manufacture of synthetic rubber and dyes, as a dry cleaning agent and as a grain fumigant. These uses in many countries have been eliminated in recent years due to toxicity concerns. As a result, substitutes currently exist for the majority of its uses.

- Based on projections of the chemical industry at the year 2000, HCFCs are estimated to capture up to 30 per cent of the current CFC market. An additional 10 per cent of demand could be captured by HFCs with the remaining 60 per cent of demand satisfied by product and process substitutes. The use of HCFCs and HFCs will be essential in achieving early reductions and eventual phase-out of CFCs.

- There are currently no substitute chemicals with equivalent characteristics to halons. Other fire protection techniques (including carbon dioxide and water sprinkler systems) are, however, available in most applications that offer adequate fire protection. In addition, proper fire protection is also dependent on other features, such as detection systems, fire restrictive enclosures, cable and wire insulation, proper construction planning, etc. A timetable for phasing down halon consumption has been discussed by experts in the Review Panel Committee. No consensus was reached on a possible timetable, although the majority of experts felt that conservation practises and the afore mentioned protection measures alone are adequate to allow an orderly and complete phaseout by the year 2005. Some believed a reduction of 60 per cent, at the most, was achievable within 5 years with a total phaseout possible if alternative chemicals became available. Others concluded that a reduction schedule was premature until substitutes became available.

- Technology is currently available to capture, recycle, and destroy CFCs and halons. However, more cost effective techniques are currently under development.

Since substitutes currently exist for most of their uses, it is technically feasible by the year 2000 to:

- Phase down by at least 95 per cent the production and consumption of the five controlled CFCs.

- Phase out totally the production and consumption of carbon tetrachloride since this has been possible in many countries.

- Phase down by at least 90 per cent the production and consumption of methyl chloroform.

Reductions for CFCs and methyl chloroform require that substitutes currently available or under development are environmentally acceptable and are made commercially available throughout the world.

Production of all of the substances referred to above would not be restricted for subsequent use as a chemical feedstock.

2.4 Economic Implications

A review of the Protocol measures requires an appraisal of the costs of substitution of CFCS and halons and the benefits of avoiding ozone depletion.

Canada, United States of America, Europe, and Japan account for approximately 80 per cent of the total consumption of controlled chemicals. The per capita consumption in developed economies is in many cases more than ten times the per capita consumption in most developing countries. Economic implications have to be considered in the context of developed and developing economies separately.

Economic/Environmental Benefits of Reduced CFC/halon Use.

Reducing the use of ozone-depleting substances could have enormous beneficial impacts on human health and the environment in both 'developed and developing countries. The current state of scientific knowledge makes it very difficult to quantify the magnitude of many of these impacts. Nevertheless, the scientific evidence is mounting that predicted stratospheric ozone depletion will cause increased levels of skin cancers, cataracts, immune suppression, and other human health impacts, plus additional effects on plants and animals, among others. Many factors associated with proper valuation procedures vary from one region of the world to another and between people alive today and generations to come. These issues make it inherently difficult, if not impossible, to assign a monetary value to the harmful impacts avoided as a result of the reduction in use of ozone-depleting substances.

This difficulty in economic quantification does not change the basic conclusion of the economics panel that, on a global basis, the monetary value of the benefits of safeguarding the ozone layer is undoubtedly much greater than the costs of CFC and halon reductions. However, developing countries are less able to pay the costs of reducing or phasing out CFCs and halons and may have other, more immediate concerns such as food supply and economic development. Given the fact that a global CFC reduction is essential for the protection of the ozone layer, diffusion of CFC and halon replacement technology, including recovery and recycling, is necessary and is in the interest of both developed and developing countries alike.

The Costs of Technical Substitution

The costs of reducing or eliminating CFCs and halons depend on a variety of factors including capital costs, research and development costs, operational costs (such as energy and labour costs), and safety and toxicity risks. Differences In national development and in the extent of development of CFC and halon producing and consuming industries result in large differences in transition costs for each country. Detailed estimates of the changeover costs cannot at present be made for many options. Consequently, global cost estimates are difficult to make with reasonable accuracy.

The development of options for replacing CFCs and halons is progressing rapidly. As economically feasible safe substitutes become available on a global basis, the current costs of CFC and halon reductions are expected to be reduced.

Most technical options require initial capital investments, but ultimately, some are less expensive to operate or offer improvements in product quality. The first 50 per cent reduction in the global use of CFCs will require modest new capital investment, will incur little or no net cost, will result in some business disruption, and will require very little capital abandonment. This relatively easy step will be accomplished through reduction in the use of CFCs in the manufacture of flexible foams and as aerosol propellants, the more efficient use of CFCs as solvents, and by reductions in many other applications. Cost estimates for the remaining reductions - mainly in the fields of refrigeration, air conditioning, rigid foam, solvents, and fire protection - vary widely and depend on the availability of near term drop-in and other substitutes, costs of re-engineering equipment and products, and the price, safety and energy efficiency of the substitutes.

The time-path for phasing out some CFCs can substantially affect costs. A very rapid transition (much less than 10 years) would result in substantially higher costs due to capital abandonment. Individual governments and Industries have significant opportunities to reduce costs, save money and improve energy efficiency if the best reduction strategy is chosen. Higher energy efficiency would reduce greenhouse gas emissions for an equivalent provision of service.

Technology Transfer

Developing countries have special needs and concerns as part of a global effort to protect stratospheric ozone. These concerns include: (1) the cost of CFC supply; (2) the cost of chemical substitutes; (3) the cost of imported products made now with CFCs and which, later, will be made with substitutes; (4) the cost of access to new technology; and (5) maintenance of trade with Parties to the Protocol in products made with or containing CFCs and halons.

- Even low-use developing countries will want to adopt now technologies that cost about the same as or less than the old CFC technologies. For example, the potential cost savings from more energy efficient refrigerators may be more important in developing countries where income is low and energy costs are high. All countries can avoid new capital investment that would make them more dependent on CFCs and would result in later costs from abandonment of CFC capital when they begin their phase-down.

- Developing countries which are Party to the Protocol, need to be able to purchase CFCs for important needs such as food preservation until the alternatives are available. These countries may be able to purchase allowable quantities of CFCs at reasonable prices as production capacity becomes surplus in developed countries due to the CFC phase-down. New investment in CFC production technology is now imprudent since there may not be time to depreciate the new capital and since ample supplies of CFCs may be available at low prices as developed countries phase-down production. Some coordination may be necessary to assure a reliable reasonable price and supply. A low-cost adequate supply to developing countries which are Party to the Protocol can avoid the cost of investment in old CFC technology.

- The new chemical substitutes (HFCs and HCFCs) are estimated to cost two to five times as much as CFCs when they become generally commercially available due to the increased cost of chemical ingredients, manufacturing costs, and capital cost. In some cases, the new chemicals may provide cost-offsetting advantages such as improvements in energy efficiency or other product performance.

However, developing countries may need development assistance including capital grants and other technology transfer to afford these new chemicals. Countries that now produce CFCs, including developing countries may decide to become producers of some of the new chemicals. UNEP should carefully monitor this situation as new chemicals become available, mostly after 1993.

- To the extent that new products (refrigerators, electronics, etc.) cost more due to increases in research-and-development, capital investment, chemical ingredients, and other costs; countries that import these products may need supplementary technical assistance or financial aid.

Currently, the lack of technical knowledge and financial resources of developing countries inhibits the adoption of certain CFC/halon replacement technologies and the definition and implementation of the best national options for the transition to CFC-free technologies.

Some CFC replacement technologies will be adopted in the usual course of economic growth, but at a slow rate. Development assistance will be required in most cases. Funding is needed for the transfer of technology during the transition period because currently available resources are already strained as a result of the world debt problem and the dire economic situation of many countries. Examples of methods of raising funds for financial assistance vary from charging for CFC use to contributing a small percentage of GNP. Financial assistance can be either bilateral or multilateral, for example, as a contribution to an international fund.

3.0 REPORTING AND SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION REQUIREMENTS

Reporting and systematic observations of all chlorine and bromine containing chemicals that can contribute to the chlorine and bromine loading of the stratosphere (hence potential stratospheric ozone depletion), or to the predicted global warming, is strongly recommended. This should include all fully halogenated CFCs currently not included in the Montreal Protocol, as well as carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and the proposed substitute chemicals, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Reporting and systematic observation requirements for these chemicals should be similar to those required for the substances currently controlled by the Montreal Protocol, which should meet the needs of the scientific community to evaluate the environmental impacts of these chemicals.

A "monitoring" network that could evaluate the global abundances and trends of the HCFCs and HFCs would require more stations than the current network that is used to monitor the long-lived CFCs. This is because the atmospheric distributions of the HCFCs and HFCs will exhibit greater variability since their atmospheric lifetimes are shorter than those of the CFCs. A quantitative evaluation of the impact of atmospheric chlorine and bromine on the stratosphere could be achieved if a sub-set of the stations in this network also monitored the chemical composition and physical structure of the stratosphere.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

Ozone depletion is a g1obal problem It is caused by those nations
producing and consuming CFCs, halons, and other chlorine- and
bromine-containing chemicals which are eventually released into the Earth's
atmosphere. Ozone depletion increases the amount of harmful ultraviolet
radiation reaching the Earth's surface and, among other things, can result in
adverse consequences for human health and may cause a reduction in food
production. While the largest ozone depletions are predicted to occur at high
latitudes in both the hemispheres, enhanced levels of ultraviolet radiation
will have adverse effects on people from all nations, independent of
geographical position, e.g., northern or southern hemisphere, or economic
status, e.g. developed or developing. While peoples with lightly pigmented
skins are most susceptible to melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, all
peoples are susceptible to contracting eye disorders and a suppression of the
immune response system. Unfortunately, those people with inadequate health
services are placed at the greatest risk, e.g. some of the developing
countries. Agricultural and fisheries productivities could decrease because
of enhanced levels of ultraviolet radiation, and again those people likely to
be affected most, live where shortages of food now exist.

Developed/Developing Nations Partnership Needed: The current and historic use of CFCs, halons, and other chlorine and bromine containing chemicals in developed nations is the primary cause of this problem. However, it is clear that protection of the ozone layer will require a full partnership between developed countries that have caused the problem and those in developing countries who would now like to improve their standard of living by using these chemicals for uses such as refrigeration. The lack of technical knowledge and financial resources of developing countries inhibits the adoption of certain CFC/halon replacement technologies and the definition and implementation of the best national options for the transition to CFC-free technologies. Funding is needed to assist the transfer of technology to developing countries during the transition period because currently available resources are already strained as a result of the world debt problem and the dire economic situation of many countries.

Current Montreal Protocol: The total chlorine and bromine loadings of the atmosphere are predicted to approximately triple by the year 2050 and lead to total column ozone depletions of 0 to 4 per cent in the tropics and 4 to 12 per cent at high latitudes (without consideration of the effects of surface induced chemistry, which could increase these estimates, at least in polar regions). The Antarctic ozone depletion would be expected to be comparable or worse than at present and significant Arctic ozone losses would become more likely. Significant adverse human health consequences would be expected.

Stabilizing atmospheric, chlorine and bromine: Stabilizing atmospheric chlorine and bromine to today's levels can be achieved through a phase-out of the CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and the halons. (Other control options may also do this). If the total chlorine and bromine loading of the atmosphere is stabilized, the seasonal Antarctic ozone pole would recur for the forseeable future, but no additional significant ozone depletion would be expected either in the Arctic of globally. Indeed, if the stabilized chlorine and bromine levels are accompanied by increased atmospheric abundances of carbon dioxide and methane then minor increases in ozone might even be expected. This assumes that increases in carbon dioxide and methane will not significantly decrease the temperature of the lower polar stratosphere and change polar meteorology and PSC abundances.

Antarctic Ozone "Hole": The Antarctic ozone hole will not disappear until the atmospheric abundance of chlorine is reduced to the levels of the early 19701s: 1.5-2 ppbv assuming present climate. In addition, the atmospheric abundance of bromine should remain at, or be reduced below, today's level and this implies a reduction in bromine emissions. This could be achieved by a complete phase-out of the fully halogenated CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform, and careful consideration of what emission rates of the HCFCs are acceptable. Even if all anthropogenic, sources of atmospheric chlorine were to be eliminated today, the time taken for the abundance of atmospheric chlorine to be reduced below 2 ppbv would be many decades, hence the seasonal Antarctic ozone hole will recur for a long time to come.

Long Atmospheric Recovery Times: once chemicals, such as the chlorofluorocarbons with long atmospheric lifetimes, are emitted into the atmosphere, the time for the atmosphere to fully recover is many decades to centuries. Compliance (100 per cent participation by all nations), broad scope of control (inclusion of chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform), and stringency (a complete phaseout of these chemicals) are of paramount importance in protecting the ozone layer. Almost any level of non- compliance or reduction in the scope and stringency below a complete phase-out of CFCs, methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride would effectively eliminate the possibility of reducing the atmospheric abundance of chlorine below today's level. It should be noted, however, that timing is also important. For every year that fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons are emitted into the atmosphere at the present rate, it will take about an additional five years for the abundance of atmospheric chlorine to be reduced below 2 ppbv. Therefore, the sooner the fully halogenated CFCs and carbon terachloride are phased out of production, the "quicker" the Antarctic ozone hole might recover. In contrast, the atmospheric loading of chlorine from chemicals with shorter atmospheric lifetimes, such as the HCFCs and methyl chloroform, decreases much more quickly once their emissions into the atmosphere are terminated.

CFC Phase Out Technically Feasible: Since substitutes currently exist for most of their uses, it is technically feasible by the year 2000 to:

- Phase down by at least 95 per cent the production and consumption of the five controlled CFCs.
- Phase out totally the production and consumption of carbon tetrachloride since this has been possible in many countries.

- Phase down by at least 90 per cent the production and consumption of methyl chloroform.

Reduction for CFCs and methyl chloroform require that substitutes currently available or under development are environmentally acceptable and are made commercially available throughout the world.

Production of any of the substances referred to above would not be restricted for subsequent use as a chemical feedstock.

High Economic Costs with Rapid Phase-outs: A rapid phase-out of some CFCs over a period much less than 10 years will substantially increase costs due to abandonment of capital investment in CFC producing and using technologies and by the rush to change technologies. Major sectors including the foam industry, would lose market to product alternatives resulting in jobs losses in some areas and gains in others. The costs of technology transfer and capital investment in developing countries would also increase substantially if reduction schedules under the special provisions of the Protocol are also shortened. A rush to market selected technologies that were more expensive to buy or operate would also increase the costs in developed and developing countries. For example, a faster phase-out schedule may not allow time to develop more energy efficient domestic refrigerators. This could increase product cost without off-setting decreases in electricity costs and would have global climate implications from increased C02 emissions.

--------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------

Table 1. Range of Ozone Depletion Potentials (ODPs) and halocarbon Global Warming Potentials (GWPs)

species

HCFC-141b

0.07-0.11

 

0.084-0.097

HCFC-142b

0.05-0.06

 

0.34-0.39

CH3CC13

0.10-0.16

 

0.022-0.026

 

 

 

 

halon-1301*

7.8-13.2

10.0

 

halon-1211*

2.2-3.0

3.0

 

halon-2402*

5.0-6.2

6.0

 


The ODPs for the halons are sensitive to the atmospheric abundance of chlorine. The values shown in the table are for present day conditions (i.e. a chlorine abundance of about 3 ppbv). The ODPs for the halons increase at higher chlorine abundances.

The halocarbon GWPs are all normalized to a value of unity for CFC-11. An equally valid alternate set of values can be obtained by normalization to CFC-12 (this was done in the Technology Assessment report). Normalization to CFC-12 requires dividing all the GWP values shown in the table by 3.1 (the average value for the GWP for CFC-12). The benefit gained by substitution of a CFC with an HCFC (or an HFO is computed by rationing the GWP values of the HCFC (or HFC) to the CFC.

The ODPs and GWPs are defined in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 in the Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone: 1989, Panel for Scientific Assessment.

Appendix A

The various scenarios for controlling the ozone-depleting substances are not summarized directly from the assessment report but are derived from the findings of the panels. The purpose of their inclusion is to provide the linkage so as to facilitate policy consideration from the findings of the four panels.

EXAMPLE SCENARIOS

Scenarios for controlling the emissions of chlorine containing chemicals. The following section presents possible scenarios for controlling chlorine containing chemicals. For each scenario, there is a brief description of (1) how the atmosphere is predicted to respond in terms of chlorine loading and stratospheric ozone depletion (polar and globally) by the year 2050, (11) environmental effects, (III) technical feasibility, and (1v) economic costs. Figure 2 presents the total chlorine concentrations in the stratosphere from 1986 through 2100 that would result from each of these five possible scenarios for controlling chlorine containing chemicals. In each of the following scenarios a number of assumptions have been made. These include, (1) 100 per cent global participation, (ii) an average annual growth In goods and services that currently use CFCs of 3 per cent between 1986 and 2050 and constant thereafter, (III) an increase in methyl chloroform and HCFC-22 emissions of 3 per cent between 1986 and 2050 and constant thereafter, and (iv) no growth in the emissions of carbon tetrachloride. This last assumption may be optimistic given that the atmospheric abundance of carbon tetrachloride has recently been increasing at about I per cent per year.

Scenarios for controlling the emissions of halons. For the purposes of discussing these Scenarios it was assumed that the halons currently covered by the Montreal Protocol were treated in a manner consistent with the CFCs, i.e., the CFC phase-out was accompanied by a halon phase-out. (The technology assessment did not result in a conclusion that the schedule for the phase down of halons could be accomplished at the same rate for currently controlled CFCs without a potential increased fire risk.)

Environmental consequences. There is a general lack of quantitative information available for most of the environmental effects discussed in Section 2.2. Therefore, specific quantified projections of the magnitude of the effects to be predicted for each of the different scenarios discussed below is unwarranted. However, two human health impacts that can be quantified are, (I) that for every I per cent decrease in total column ozone there would be a 3 per cent increase In the incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer, and (ii) that for every 1 per cent decrease in total column ozone there would be a 0.6 per cent increase in the incidence of cataracts. These relationships apply to all of the predicted ozone changes in the scenarios discussed below:

Model predictions of ozone depletion. There are two key points to be noted about the model calculations of ozone depletion; (I) none of the models considered the effects of ice crystal chemistry, which could increase the estimates of ozone depletion, at least In polar regions, and (11) the model results shown for each of the five scenarios, except scenario 1, do not include the effect of temperature feedback. Increasing abundances of atmospheric carbon dioxide decrease stratospheric temperatures, which, in turn. lead to a decrease in the destruction of ozone through temperature feedback. While there.are still open questions regarding the quantitative treatment of the influence of carbon dioxide (temperature feedback), those models that do not Include the carbon dioxide effect are almost certainly overestimating the magnitude of ozone depletion by chlorine - and bromine-containing chemicals compared to models including temperature feedback (the results shown in option 1 demonstrate the magnitude of this effect).

1 Current Montreal Protocol (Figure 2, Scenario)

Science: As seen in Figure 2, the total chlorine loading of the atmosphere is expected to increase to about 8 ppbv by the year 2050 (triple today's level) and about 10 ppbv by the end of the next century. An increase from 2.7 ppbv to above 8 ppbv of total chlorine is predicted to lead to an additional total column ozone depletion of 1 to 4 per cent in the tropics and 4 to 12 per cent at high latitudes. These models did not taie into account the impact of increasing atmospheric abundances of carbon dioxide. For models that did include the effect of carbon dioxide, predicted column ozone reductions were somewhat less, i.e., 0 to 1.5 per cent in the tropics and from 3.5 per cent to 7 per cent at 'high latitudes in late winter. None of these models considered the effects of ice crystal chemistry which could increase the estimates of ozone depletion, at least in polar regions. Higher ozone layer depletions would occur after the year 2050 as atmospheric chlorine abundances increase. The Antarctic ozone hole would be expected to be comparable to or worse than at present, and significant Arctic ozone losses would become more likely.

Technology: There is a large choice of product, chemical, and process control systems available to accomplish much more than a 50 per cent reduction in CFCs and a freeze in halons, even with no new substitute chemicals.

Economics: The economic benefits of the Montreal Protocol in developed and developing countries include reduced lose of life from cancer, health Improvement, and the associated savings in medical costs. There are also benefits of increased worker productivity and longevity. In addition, there are savings stemming from longer product life of UV-sensitive plastics and other materials exposed to sunlight. Fewer losses in agricultural and marine productivity--with possibly far greater changes in some regions than others--are particularly important economic factors in developing countries where food price increases would have to be at the expense of other essential spending.

(a) Developed Countries: A 50 per cent reduction in production and consumption of CFCs and a freeze in halon production and use will require modest new capital investment, will incur little or no net cost, will result in some disruption, and will require very little capital abandonment. User industries will have to adjust to a reduced supply of CFCs, but relatively modest amounts of new capital investment will be required and capital redundance is not expected to be particularly significant. Aerosols, foam, solvent, automobile air conditioning, and other sectors will be most affected. Which industries will be most affected in any country will depend on how reductions in consumption are implemented, for example, by voluntary agreements, market forces, or national regulation. There is a substantial opportunity for cost savings from international and national industrial cooperation. The use of CFCs in foam insulation and refrigeration could preserve current energy efficiency. Equal fire protection can be provided at similar costs if industry reduces fire risk and the consequences of fires through architectural design, fire-resistant construction, lower flammable loads in high-value areas and by backup of computer systems and records.

(b) Developing Countries: Special provisions of the Montreal Protocol allow low-use, developing countries to increase annual CFC consumption as much as 0.3 kilograms per capita for up to ton years. However, these countries will naturally want to adopt now technologies that cost about the same or less than the old CFC technologies. All countries can avoid new capital investment that would make them more dependent on CFCs and would result in later costs from abandonment of CFC capital when they begin their 50 per cent phase-down. For example, new investment in CFC production technology is imprudent since there may not be time to depreciate the new capital and since ample supplies of CFCs may be available at lower prices as developed countries phase-down production. In most CFC applications substantial reductions are possible with technical options that require some initial capital investment, but actually save money in the long run by reduced operating costs and by improved product quality. However, investment funds must be available for the transfer of t'hese technologies to developing countries including the funds for the purchase of new capital. Some of these funds can be repaid from the operating cost savings of the new investment and from costs that are recovered from export sales, but some investment will need to be grants from developed countries.

2 CFC Phaseout, no controls on methyl chloroform (50 per cent substitution of CFCs with HCFCs with an average ODP of 0.05) (Figure 2, scenario 2)

Science: Atmospheric chlorine abundances in the year 2050 is predicted to be 1.8 ppbv lower than scenario 1, i.e. about 6 ppbv, or twice today's level, increasing to about 7 ppbv by the end of the century. An increase from 2.7 ppbv to about 6 ppbv of total chlorine is predicted to lead to an ozone depletion of I to 2.5 per cent near the equator and 4 to 6 per cent at high latitudes (without considering the effects of ice crystal chemistry, which could increase these estimates, at least in polar regions). As in scenario 1, the Antarctic ozone depletion would be expected to comparable or worse than at present, and significant Arctic ozone losses would become more likely.


Technology: Phase out of at least 95-98 per cent of production and consumption is possible by the year 2000 based on today's knowledge and total phase out within 5-10 years thereafter. The commercialization of chemicals currently under test would allow a phase-out by the year 2000. In this case, drop-in substitutes are needed for in-use equipment and substitutes are needed for medical products. The existing capital stock of refrigeration and air conditioning can be serviced from recycled CFCs if aggressive recycling programs recover CFCs during servicing and from decommissioned equipment and from equipment where the CFCs are replaced by near "drop-in" chemical blends. A phase-out of CFCs is dependent on the availability of HCFCs and HFC9, particularly for rigid insulating foam, refrigeration/air conditioning, and medical/hospital sectors.

Economics: (a) Developed countries, Capital investment for a complete phase-out will be higher than for the current Montreal Protocol. The net cost of the first 50 per cent reduction can be made with existing technical options at little or no net cost but Investment is necessary. Additional cost-effective technologies will be developed prior to the year 2000 if a phase-out is scheduled. The marginal cost of final reduction may be very expensive. There will be significant business disruption with increasing.cost of final phase-out unless new technologies are developed in time. Major product substitution is likely in the foam sectors. Product substitutes are currently available at similar cost but require some redesign and changes in construction practices to accommodate thicker insulating materials. Capital abandonment will be higher than under the current Protocol. Substantial research and development is needed to avoid unacceptable losses in energy efficiency.

(b) Developing countries: Very ambitious technology transfer is necessary to developing countries including financing of capital to use new chemical alternatives, the retrofit of existing capital equipment to minimize CFC emissions, and for recycling and recovery. Countries qualifying for special use provisions will also want new cost-saving technology as soon as it is available.

3 CFC Phaseout, freeze on methyl chloroform (50 per cent substitution of
CFCs by HCFCs with an average ODP of 0.05) (Figure 2, scenario 3)

Science: Freezing methyl chloroform at its 1986 levels, in conjunction with a CFC phaseout, is predicted to lead to an atmospheric abundance of chlorine in the year 2050 of about 4.5 ppbv, or one and one half today's level, then staying constant throughout the rest of the century. An increase from 3 ppbv to 4.5 ppbv of total chlorine is predicted to lead to little change in total column ozone in the tropics and a decrease of up to 4 per cent at high latitudes (without considering the effects of ice crystal chemistry, which could increase these estimates, at least in polar regions). The Antarctic ozone layer depletion would be expected to remain similar to that of today, with Arctic ozone losses becoming somewhat more likely.


Technology: Comments relating to scenario 2 also apply to CFCs in scenario 3. Substitutes currently exist that would permit at least 90 per cent reduction of methyl chloroform. Therefore, a freeze should pose few insurmountable problems. Methyl chloroform is a low cost effective solvent. Methyl chloroform is widely used, with varying workplace precautions, in most regions of the world. Concern for the ozone layer has already stimulated the development of alternatives that clean as well or better than CFC-113. These alternatives include aqueous, terpene and alcohol cleaners. These alternatives to CFC-113 are also alternatives for methyl chloroform in most uses.

Economics: This scenario has the same economic implications as scenario 2 above plus the following additional implications.

(a) Developed countries: Based on analysis in the Electronic, Degreasing, and Dry Cleaning Solvents report and the Technology panel report, a freeze in carbon tetrachloride emissions in countries where it is already prohibited due to toxicity will have no economic effects. In other countries a freeze in carbon tetrachloride emissions and a freeze in methyl chloroform production and use would provide increased benefits of ozone protection and benefits resulting from reduced health and environmental exposure to carbon tetrachloride. The economic benefits of increased product durability and performance, particularly in electronics, are far more valuable than small changes in cleaning cost that are an inconsequential part of final product cost. Some alternatives such as aqueous and terpene cleaning alternatives require moderate capital investment but new HCFC solvents are near "drop-in" replacements. Costs of cleaning are an extremely small part of final product cost except in the case of dry cleaning. Use of methyl chloroform is more important to small solvent users in both developed and developing countries because it is low cost and relatively safe to use. Little if any capital abandonment is necessary if HCFCs are commercialized promptly and no new investment is made in CFC solvent equipment.

(b) Developing Countries: New low-cost/no cost solvent alternatives will allow a freeze in carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform at low net cost world-wide if technology is promptly transferred to developing countries. Methyl chloroform will be less economically important when technologies are transferred to developing countries. Increased technical assistance and investment funds are necessary for investment in the new technologies.

4 CFC Phaseout, Phaseout of both carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform (50 per cent substitution of CFCs by HCFCs with an average ODP of 0.05) (Figure 2, scenario 4)

Science: Phaseout of both carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform in conjunction with a CFC phase out is predicted to lead to an atmospheric abundance of chlorine in the year 2050 of about 3.5 ppbv, or slightly above today's level, then staying constant throughout the rest of the century. An increase from 3 ppbv to 3.5 ppbv of total chlorine is predicted to lead to little change in total column ozone in the tropics and decreases limited to about 3 per cent at high latitudes (without considering the effects of ice crystal chemistry, which could increase these estimates, at least in polar regions). The Antarctic ozone depletion would be expected to be unchanged, but additional significant Arctic ozone losses would be expected to be small. Thus, this scenario describes keeping approximately the status quo with regard to the present state of the ozone layer.

Technology: Substitutes exist for almost all methyl chloroform solvent uses, with the exception of a few uses such as methyl chloroform in waterborne adhesive products. The phase out of mechanisms for carbon tetrachloride should-have as its end point the phase-out of emissions, because carbon tetrachloride is needed as feedstock for the production of HCFCs. Substitutes exist for current uses of carbon tetrachloride other than as a feedstock chemical.

Economics: This scenarios is the same as scenarios 2 and 3 above, plus additional human health advantages from the carbon tetrachloride reductions. Carbon tetrachloride use as a solvent is prohibited in many countries because it is a highly toxic and carcinogenic. Carbon tetrachloride can be safely used as an economically important chemical feedstock that is transformed during chemical production and therefore need not be regulated in feedstock uses that have no emissions. The United States, Europe, and Japan already limit carbon tetrachloride use in non-feedstock applications to 3-9 per cent of total production. Additional research will be necessary to understand minor uses and to develop alternatives and substitutes. New capital investment is moderate since existing capital can be used by some new alternatives. Capital abandonment will be minimal because many solvent machines will be replaced in the normal course of business. Increased technology transfer is necessary in developing countries, including financing of additional capital investment to use new alternatives and substitutes. More economic analysis on carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform should be conducted in the near future.

5 CFC Phaseout, Phaseout of both carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform, (20 per cent substitution of CFCs by HCFCs with an average ODP of 0.02) (Figure 2, scenario 5).

Science: Phaseout of both carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform in conjunction with a CFC phaseout, but with HCFC substitution being limited to 20 per cent with an average ODP of 0.02 is predicted to lead to an atmospheric abundance of chlorine in the year 2050 slightly less than today's level. The Antarctic ozone depletion would be expected to be unchanged, and significant Arctic ozone losses would be expected to be somewhat less likely than today. Eventually, with this scenario (beyond the year 2100) the atmospheric abundance of chlorine would drop below about 2 ppbv and ozone in Antarctica may be expected to return to normal (all other things being equal, e.g. climate). Although no model calculations were performed using this scenario, it is likely that all models would predict an increase in global total column ozone beyond the middle of the next century due to the effects of the increasing atmospheric abundances of carbon dioxide and methane.

Technology: All of previous comments apply. HCFCs and HFCs are needed for phasing-out CFCs before the year 2000. HCFCs such as HCFC-22, 124, 142b, are ingredients in the proposed high energy efficiency refrigerant blends. HCFC-22 is already commercialized as an energy efficient refrigerant in small and medium sized air conditioning systems and some refrigeration equipment. Emission controls for the existing and new future equipment may be desirable; these should be realizable taking into account the experience obtained in emission controls for CFC refrigeration equipment. In the short term, HCFCs are the only candidates for the highest quality rigid foam insulation (energy efficient) in applications such as refrigerators where thickness cannot be easily increased to provide equivalent insulation. In the long-term, vacuum insulation may provide greater insulation value, and instead of HCFCs, new HFC refrigerants such as HFC-134a and HFC-152a might be blended for use in certain refrigeration equipment.

Economics: This scenario has the same economic implications as scenarios 2, 3, and 4 above plus it has a higher risk of increases in energy use if alternative insulation of equivalent value is not used, if insulating foam made without HCFCs ages more rapidly, or if the choice of refrigerants not including HCTC ingredients results in lower energy efficiency. Higher energy use has implications for resource use, pollution, climate change, national costs, and consumer prices. However, HCFCs may not be essential in these uses if more energy efficient alternatives are developed that are not dependent on HCFCs. It may not be economically or technically feasible to phase-out CFCs while providing some products such as medical aerosols and low pressure, non-flammable ethylene oxide sterilization if HCFCs are not available.

Transient Scenarios

Introduction:

A series of chlorine- loading scenarios is presented assuming a range of controls over the global production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), carbon tetrachloride (CC14), methylchloroform (CH3CC13), fluorocarbon 22 (CHF2CL) and of possible new halocarbon substitutes (HCFCs). The chlorine loading is calculated as the bulk atmospheric mixing ratio of chlorine atoms in parts per billion (1,000,000) including compounds specified in the Montreal Protocol (CFC13 CF2CC12, C2F3CC13, C2F4CC12, C2F5CCl), as well as all other major chlorocarbons, 66th anthropogenic (CC14, CH3CC13, CHF2CI) and natural (CH3CI).

The following scenarios were constructed as a sensitivity study to examine (only some of die) possible approaches to limiting atmospheric chlorine content. The scenarios for the halocarbon source gases-are similar to, but not identical to, those used by the UNEP / WMO assessment. Two particular differences are that the lifetime of HCFC-22 is assumed to be 15 years (rather than 20 years) based on more recent analyses of hydrohalocarbon lifetimes, and that the assumed CFC cutback in emissions occurs entirely at the end of a 'given year rather than being phased in over 5 years from 1996 to 2000.

The reduction in emissions of CFCs and all other chlorine containing species, except CH30, is assumed to take place instantly at die end of the year 2000 (and alternatively 1995 and 2005 in separate calculations). Several levels of reductions are considered (100%, 90%, and 80%).

Two substitute chemicals are considered -as replacements for the reductions in CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22: * compound X has a 15 year lifetime (like HCFC 22) with a Single chlorine atom and a mean molecular weight of 115, corresponding to a chlorine loading factor of 0.10 relative to CFC 11; * compound Y has a 6 year lifetime (like CH3CC13) with a single chlorine atom and a mean molecular weight of 115, corresponding to a chlorine loading factor of 0.04 relative to CFC I L'

The chlorine loading factors are equivalent to ozone depleting potentials (ODPs) if the substitute releases free chlorine in the stratosphere in the same manner as CFC 11. Chlorine atoms are released by photolysis of CFC I mainly in the lower stratosphere and am thus available for participation in the catalytic ozone destruction throughout the stratosphere. Other CFCs, such as CFC 12, and HCFC 22, are more slowly destroyed in the stratosphere, and some of the chlorine is retained in the CFCs or HCFCs throughout much of the stratosphere. For these compounds, the model derived ODPs (relative to CFC 11) will be less than the relative chlorine loading because a fraction of the stratospheric chlorine remains unreactive in the form of the CFC or HCFC.

Choosing substitute X to replace some of the cutbacks in CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22, is equivalent to continuing, and possibly expanding, the use of HCFC 22: 'Me chlorine loading of HCFC 22 is slightly larger, 0. 13, but its ODP is currently modelled to be smaller, 0.05, as discussed above. 'Must substitute X mimics the temporal behavior of HCFC 22 and its emissions (in Kg) can be scaled up or down depending on which is used for HCFC' 22. Similarly, substitute Y mimics CH3CC13, but has only one chlorine and hence continued CH3CC13 emissions must be counted as about three times the same emission of Y.

Objectives:

A number of scenarios were performed to test their impact upon peak chlorine loading, the rate at which the atmospheric abundance of chlorine decreased, and the date at which the atmospheric abundance of chlorine drops below 2 ppbv.

I . Test the impact of the timing of a phaseout in CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and
HCFC 22.

2. Test the impact of different substitution scenarios for compound X and
compound Y.

3. Test the impact of freezing the emissions of CH3CC13 at their 1986 levels until
the year 2030, instead of a phaseout in the year 2000.

4. Test the impact of non-compliance.
5. Test the impact of delaying the compliance of developing countries by 15 years compared to that of the developed countries.

6. Evaluate the impact of halon emissions, in comparison to chlorine emissions.

Peak chlorine loading is related to the probability of significant ozone loss in the Arctic and globally. It is controlled by the chlorine that has been added to date, and that which will be added prior to a complete phaseout of CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22, unless the substitution rates of compounds X and / or Y are greater than 100% of the 1986 emissions of the sum of CFCs, C04, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22.

Ile rate of decrease in atmospheric chlorine, after the phaseout of the long-lived CFCs and C04, is primarily governed by the volume, and ODPs, of the substitutes.

'Me time required to reduce the atmospheric abundance of chlorine to below 2 ppbv is primarily governed by the amounts of the long-lived CFCs and CC14 already emitted into the atmosphere, and that which will be emitted prior to a phaseout of these chemicals, assuming that the emissions of any substitutes are eliminated in a timely manner (to be discussed in detail below).

Key atmospheric chlorine abundances to remember:

I . Natural abundance of chlorine 0.7 ppbv
2. Elimination of the Antarctic ozone hole 1.5 to 2.0 ppbv

3. Today's abundance of chlorine about 3.0 ppbv

Scenarios:

The fluxes used in the basic scenarios are:

CFC 11 350 Gg / year. constant until the year 2000
CFC 12 450 Gg / year
CFC 113 150 Gg / year
CFC 114 15 Gg year
CFC 115 5 Gg year
CC14 78 Gg year + 0.5 Gg / year from 1985 to 2000
CFC 22 140 Gg / year + 7.0 Gg / year from 1985 to 2000
CH3CC13 570 Gg / year + 14.7 Gg / year from 1985 to 2000
X and Y a multitude of scenarios

Objective 1. Test the impact of the timing of a phaseout in CFCs, CC14,
CH3CC1,3, and HCFC 22.

This objective was tested by eliminating the emissions of CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22, as a group, in the years 1995, 2000 (base case), and 2005, with no substitution. In addition, a case was run where there was a 50% phaseout in 1995 followed by a complete phaseout in 2000, with no substitution. (N.B. Banking of these gases, especially the long-lived CFCs, and possible non compliance, make these dates for cessation of CFC emissions slip further into the future).

Table I and Figure I show the results of these scenarios. It is evident that each 5 year delay in the total phaseout of these chemicals results in the peak chlorine loading increasing by about 0.5 ppbv (half of it due to the CFCs and CC14, and half of it due to CH3CCID, and the time taken for the atmospheric abundance of chlorine to drop below 2 ppbv increases by about 15 years. The delay in reaching an atmospheric loading of 2 ppbv is due to the timing of the phaseout of the CFCs and CC14 and is not influenced by the timing of the phaseout of CH3CC13 and HCFC 22.

The key information from these scenarios is that an early phaseout of these substances results in a lower peak chlorine loading (0. 1 ppbv / year) and an earlier date for the atmospheric chlorine loading to drop below 2 ppbv or 1.5 ppbv, hence potential recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. The following table shows the dates when the atmospheric abundance of chlorine reaches 2 ppbv and 1.5 ppbv, the range of chlorine abundances predicted for recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.

Scenario Chlorine = 2 ppbv Chlorine = 1.5 ppbv Peak Chlorine
Loading (ppbv)
1995 Phaseout 2049 2086 4.01
1995 partial Phaseout 2057 2095 4.01
2000 Phaseout 2065 -2110 4.49
2005 Phaseout 2081 >2100 4.96

Objective 2. Test the impact of different substitution scenarios for CFCs,
T
CC14, CH3t-03, and FICK 22 by compounds X and Y.

This objective was tested by eliminating the emissions of CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22, as a group, in the year 2000 (base case) with substitution by either compound X (15 year lifetime, ODP = 0.1) or compound Y (6 year lifetime, ODP = 0.04). Substitution rates, for both compound X and compound Y of 25%,50%, 100%, with 0% and 3% annual growth rates, were used. Phaseout dates for the substitutes of 2015 and 2030 were used for compound X, and 2030 and 2045 for compound Y. The % substitution rates are on, the total fluxes of CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22 in the year 2WO. Table 2 (a and h) and Figures 2 (compound X) and 3 (compound Y) show the results of these scenarios. Figure 4 and Table 2c shows the impact of a phased phase-out of CFC's, CC14, CH3CC13 and HCFC-22 (50% in the year with a complete phase-out in the year 2000). Most of the substitution scenarios presented below do not impact the earliest date for the atmospheric abundance of chlorine to reach either 2 ppbv, i.e., the year 2065, or 1.5 ppbv-- - i.e., the year -2110. The emissions of compounds X and Y are terminated early enough (the tar 2030, or before, for compound X, and the year 2045, or before, for compound Y) that the-.

UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG-V2)/4
Annex II
Appendix B
Page 45

chlorine loading of the atmosphere beyond the year 2065 is governed by the CFCs and CC14 emitted prior to their phaseout. In one or two of the high substitution rate scen4rios there is a penalty of a few years in the date at which the atmospheric abundance of chlorine decreases below 2 ppbv. The worst case is a delay of 8 years when there is substitution with compound X at 100% with 3% annual growth until the year 2030.

The impact of the substitution of compounds X and Y on atmospheric chlorine abundances during, and immediately following, the period of substitution will now be discussed. The tables and figures show nor scenarios than will be discussed below.

Substitution between the years 2000 and 2030 with compound X at (i) 25% (0% growth) and (ii) 25% (3% growth) results, in each case, in a rapid decrease in peak chlorine loading. The increase in atmospheric chlorine abundance above the base case (no substitution) during the period of substitution never exceeds 0.3 ppbv in case (i) and 0.5 ppbv in case (ii).

Substitution between the years 2000 and 2030 with compound X at (i) 100% (0% growth) and (ii) 100% (3% growth) results, in each case, in no rapid decrease in peak chlorine loading. In case (i) the chlorine loading only d4crtases from a peak chlorine loading of 4.5 ppbv in the year 2000 to about 4 ppbv in 2030. In case (ii) atmospheric chlorine abundances increase to a peak loading of about 5.0 ppbv in the year 2030, before decreasing back to the base case (no substitution) within 30 years, i.e., by about the year 2065.

Substitution between the years 2000 and 2030 with compound Y at (i) 25% (0% growth) and (ii) 25% (3% growth) results, in each case, in a rapid decrease in peak chlorine loading. The increase in atmospheric chlorine abundance above the base case (no substitution) during the period of substitution never exceeds 0. 15 ppbv in case (i) and 0.3 ppbv in case (ii).

Substitution between the years 2000 and 2030 with compound Y at (i) 100% (0% growth) and (ii) 100% (3% growth) results, in each case, in a modest decrease in peak chlorine loading. 'Me increase in atmospheric chlorine abundance above the base case (no substitution) during the period of substitution never exceeds 0.6 ppbv in case (i). In case (ii) the chlorine loading only decreases from a peak chlorine loading of 4.5 ppbv in the year 2000 to about 3.9 ppbv in the year 2030.

Substitution between the years 2000 and 2045 with compound Y at (i) 100% (0% growth) and (ii) 100% (3% growth) results, in each case, in a modest decrease in peak chlorine loading. "Me increase in atmospheric. chlorine abundance above the base case (no substitution) during the period of substitution never exceeds 0.6 ppbv in case W. In case (ii) the chlorine loading only decreases from a peak chlorine loading of 4.5 ppbv in the year 2000 to about 4.0 ppbv in the year 2045, before decreasing back to the base case (no substitution) within 15 years, i.e., by about the year 2060. The key conclusions to be drawn from these scenarios are that substitution of CFCs, CC14, CI-13CC13, and HCFC 22, as a group, between the years 2000 and 2030 by compound X, and between the years 2000 and 2045 by compound Y, (i) does not influence the earliest date by which the atmospheric abundance of chlorine can decrease below 2 ppbv, i.e., approximately the year 2065, and 0i) allow the atmospheric abundance of chlorine to decrease quite rapidly if substitution rates close to 25 % are used. Substitution by compound Y is preferable to substitution by compound X because of its smaller contribution to chlorine loading and its shorter lifetime, hence more rapid recovery of atmospheric chlorine after termination of

UNEP/0xL.Pro.WG.V2)/4
Annex II
Appendix B
Page 46

emissions. It should be noted that a major contribution to the rapid decrease in atmospheric chlorine after the year 2000 is the phaseout of CH3CC13-

Objective 3. Test the impact of freezing the emissions of CH3CC13 at their 1986 levels until the year 2030, instead of a phaseout in the year 2000. This objective was tested by eliminating the emissions of CFCs, CC14, and HCFC 22, as a group, in the year 2000 (base case) with substitution by either compound X or compound Y until 2030, in conjunction with a freeze in the emission of CH3CC13 at its 1986 rate until 2030. Substitution rates, for both compound X and compound Y of 25%, 50%, 100%, with 0% growth rate, and 50%, with a 3% annual growth rate, were used. The % substitution rates are on the total fluxes of CFCs, CC14, and HCFC 22 in the year 2000.

Table 3 and Figures 5 (compound X) and 6 (compound Y) show the results of these scenarios. There is no penalty in peak chlorine loading, or the date at which the atmospheric abundance of chlorine drops below 2 ppbv, in freezing the emissions of CH3CC13 at their 1986 levels until the year 2030 instead of a phaseout in the year 2000. However, the rate at which the atmospheric abundance of chlorine decreases after the year 2000 is significantly reduced if the emissions of CH3CC13 are frozen instead of being terminated. The maximum additional atmospheric abundance of chlorine is about 0.4 ppbv.

Objective 4. Test the impact of non-compliance.

This objective tested the impact of a 100%, 90%, and 80% phaseout of CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC! 22, as a group, in the year 2000 (base case), with no substitution.

Table 4 and Figure 7 show the results of these scenarios.

While the peak chlorine loading is not affected, the rate of decrease in the atmospheric abundance of atmospheric chlorine, and its equilibrium value, are significantly impacted. In the base case (100% elimination) the atmospheric abundance of chlorine has decreased to 2 ppbv by the year 2065. In case (ii), the 90% phasedown, the atmospheric abundance of chlorine is 2.2i ppbv in the year 2100, and is not expected.to decrease to 2 ppbv until after the year 2150. In case (iii), the 80% phasedown, the atmospheric abundance of chlorine is 3.0 ppbv in the year 2 100, and is close to its equilibrium value.

The key conclusion to be drawn from these scenarios is that a complete phaseout of CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22, as a group, is needed in order to decrease the atmospheric abundance of chlorine below 2 ppbv before the year 2 100. The chlorine abundances are controlled by the long-lived CFCs and CC14. Therefore, long-term non compliance by even 5 to 10% limits our ability to eliminate the Antarctic ozone hole before the year 2 100.

UNEP/0ZL.Pro-WG-I(2)/4
Annex II
Appendix B
Page 47

Objective S. Test the impact of delaying the compliance of developing countries by 15 years compared to that of the developed countries.

This objective was tested using two base cases, In case (i) it was assumed that the developing countries use of CFCs, CC14, CH3CC13, and HCFC 22, as a group, was 10% of the global total in the year 2000, and in case (U) it was 20% of the global total. In both cases it was assumed that the developed countries would phaseout their use of these substances as a group in the yew 2000, but the developing countries would be allowed an extra 15 years of use, with a phaseout of their use of these chemicals in the year 2015 (there is assumed to be constant emissions from the developing countries within the 15 year period). Three substitution scenarios were used for both cases, i.e., no substitution, and 100% substitution of compound X or compound Y, with no growth. Substitution was eliminated in the year 2030 for developed countries, and the year 2045 for developing countries, Le, them is a 15 year lag between the actions of the developed and developing countries. Table 5 and Fig. 8 show the results of these scenarios. There is no penalty in peak chlorine loading in providing a 15 year lag in compliance for
developing countries. In case (i) them is a 5 year delay in the date at which the atmospheric
abundance of chlorine drops below 2 ppbv, with or without substitution by compound X or
compound Y.- - In case (ii) them is a 10 yea delay in the date at which their atmospheric
abundance of chlorine drops below 2 ppbv, with or without substitution by compound X or
compound Y. The additional atmospheric abundance of chlorine (above the case where there is
no special treatment for the developing countries) at any date is less than 0.2 ppbv in case (i),
and 0.4 ppbv in case (ii).

Objective 6. Evaluate the Impact of halon emissions compared to chlorine emissions.

This objective was evaluated by comparing the atmospheric abundances of chlorine and bromine from the fluxes of the chlorine and bromine containing compounds and knowledge of their atmospheric lifetimes and ODPs,

Figure 9 shows the atmospheric abundances of bromine that result from the emissions of methyl bromide (CH3Br), bromoform (CHBr3), and Halons 1301 and 1211. "This calculation assumes that the fluxes of all of these gases are constant at their 1986 levels. From Figure 1 it can be seen that the atmospheric abundance of bromine today primarily results from CH3Br and CHBr3. Halons 1301 and 1211, together, only contribute about 5 pptv to the present atmospheric abundance of bromine. However, a freeze in the emissions of Halons 1301 and 1211 at their 1986 levels will result in a significant increase in the atmospheric abundance of bromine in the future (about 8 pptv from Halon 1211 within the next 50 years, and about 35 pptv from Halon 1301 between the years 2100 and 2200). These calculations assume that the atmospheric lifetimes of Halons 1211 and 1301 are 25 years and I 10 years, respectively.

To calculate the impact of these atmospheric abundances of bromine, in terms of chlorine equivalent", the bromine abundances should be multiplied by a factor of 10 to 20 (bromine is about 10 to 20 times more efficient in destroying ozone compared to chlorine, on a per molecule basis). Therefore, an atmospheric abundance of bromine of about 40 to 45 pptv is equivalent to an atmospheric abundance of chlorine of between 0.4 and 0.9 ppbv.

A phaseout or phasedown of halon emissions in the near future would significantly reduce the calculated future increases in the atmospheric abundances of bromine.


TABLE: 1

IMPACT OF THE TIMING OF A PHASEOUT IN

CFCs, CCL 4, CH 3 CCL 3 AND HCFC-22

growth
+44/yr
2000
100%

2005
100%

1995
100%

502
100%

2.9S

 

1990

3.51

3.57

3.51

3.51

3.S1

 

1995

4.01

4.23

4.01

4.02

4,01

 

2000

4'.49

4.97

4.49

3.51

3,94

 

2005

3.93

4.37

4.96

3.19

3.53

 

203LO

3.57

3.99

4.32

2.96

3.25

 

2015

3.31

3.70

3.92

2.79

3.04

 

2020

3.10

3.48

3.64

2.63

2.96

 

2025

2.93

3.28

3.41

2.50

2.71

 

2030

2.78

3.21

3.21

2.3B

2.37

 

2035

2.64

2.93

3.04

2.27

2.45

 

2ftO

2.51

2.81

2.89

2.16

2,34

 

2045

2.40

2.67

2.75

2.07

2*23

 

2050

2.29

2.55

2.62

1.98

2,13

 

2055

2.19

2.44

2.50

1.90

2.04

 

2060

2.09

2.33

2.38

1.82

1.96

 

2065

2.'bl

2.23

2.28

1.75

1.99

 

2070

1.93

2.14

2.18

1.69

1.81

 

2075

1.85

2.05

2.09

1.62

1.74

 

2080

1.78

1.97

2.01

1.57

1.67

 

2085

1.71

1.89

1.93

1.51

1.61

 

2090

1.65

1.82

1.85

1.46

1-36

 

2095

1.60

1.75

1.79

1.42

1-30

 

2100

1,54

1.69

1.72

1.37

1.46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not plotted in Figure 1.

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
(b) 3% GROWTH IN SUBSTITUTION RATES*

CFCs Cut 1004 in 2000 With substitution
(* +3%/yr growth, compounded)

substitute cut in yr

none base case

4.ol

4901

4.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000

4.49

_4.49

4.49

4.49

4.49

4,49

4.49

4.49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.005

3.93

4.03

4.35

4.32

4.01

4.27

4.27

4.24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2010

3.57'

3.77

4.37

4.24

3.70

4.11

4.11

4.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2015

3.31

3.60

4.46

4.18

3.48

4.01

4.01

3.81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2020

3.10

3.49

4.60

4.12

3.31

3.54

3.94

3.63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2025

2.93

3.39

4.77

4.05

3.18

3.92

3.92

3.47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2030

2.76

3.33

4.99

3.97

3.06

3.93

3.93

3.32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2035

2.64

3.04

4.23

3.49

2.76

:f.

14

3.97

3.19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2040

2.bl

2.80

3.65

3.12

2.57

2.73

40'06

3.06

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2045

2.40

2.60

3.21

2.83

2,42

2.49

4.19

2.95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2050

2.29

2.43

2.87

2.60

2.30

2.33

3.07

2.53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2055

2029

2.29

2.61

2.41

2.19

2.21

2.53

2.29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2060

2.09

2.17

2,39

2.26

2.10

2.10

2.24

2.14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2065

2.01

2.06

2e22

2.12

2.03.

2.01

7.07

2.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2070

1.93

1.97

2.08

2.01

1.93

1.93

1.95

1.94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2075

1.81.5

1.86

1.96

1.91

1.85

1.85

1.86

1.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2080

2.78

1.80

1.86

1.82

1.78

1.78

1.79

1.78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2085

1.71

1.73

1.77

1.75

1,71

2.71

1.72

1.72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2090

1.65

1.66

1.69

1.67

1.65

1.63

1.65

1.65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;tQ95

1.60

1.60

1.62

1.61

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2100

1.54

1.55

1.56

1.55

1.54

1.54

1.54

1.54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:;M/OzL. Pro. wG. 1(2) /A
Annex I I
Appendix B
Page 52

TABLE: 3

IMPACT OF THE IMPACT OF CH 3 CCL 3 CONTROLS

CH 3 cc 13 fixed in 1985, constant to 2030, cut (production not incluced
in total halocarbon substitute) CFCs, CCL and HCFC-22 cut 100% in
2000 with substitution cut in 2030
+3%/yr growth, compounded)

ubstitute none X X X X y y y y
1004; 304- 25% 504* 100% 504 2 54 so%*

1995 2.98 3.98 2.99 2.93 2.94 2,98 2.98 2.98 2.98
1990 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3*49 3.49 3.49 3.49
1995 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.9S 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95
2000 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.3f 4.38 4.38 4.38 4.38
2005 4.13 4.40 4.27 4.20 4.26 4.34 4.24 4.19 4.25
2010 3.92 4.37 4.14 4.03 4.19 4.22 4,07 3.99 4.10
2015 3.72 4.31 4.01 3.87 4.11 4.06 3.89 3.91 3.96
2020 3.54 4.23 3*89 3.71 4.05 3.90 3.72 3.63 3.S3
2025 3.38 4.14 3.76 3.b7 4.00 3.75 3.56 3.47 3.71
2030 3.23 4.04 3.63 3.43 3.98 3.60 3.42 3.32 3.62
2035 2.84 3.41 3.13 2.98 3,37 3.00 2.92 2.98 3.01
2040 2.60 3.01 2.80 2.70 2.99 2. 67 2.63 2.62 2.67
2045 2.43 2.73 2.58 2.51 2.71 2.46 2.45 2.44 2.46
2050 2.30 2.52 2.41 2.36 2.50 2.32 2.31 2.31 2.32
2055 2.19 2.35 2.27 2.23 2.34 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20
2060 2.10 2.21 2.15 2.12 2.20 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10
2065 2.01 2.09 2.05 2.03 2.08 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01
2070 1.93 1.98 1.96 1.94 1.98 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.93
2075 1.85 1.89 1.87 1.86 1.89 1.95 1.85 1.86 1.85
2080 1.78 1.81 1.80 1.79 1.81 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78
2085 1.71 1.74 1.73 1.72 1.73 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.11
2090 1.65 1.67 1.66 1. 616 1.67 1.69 1.65 1.65 1.65
2095 1.60 1.61 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60
2100 1.54 1.55 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54

Annex 11
Appendix B

TABLE: 4 Peg* 53

IMPACT OF NON-COMPLIANCE

substitute none no^,L nQAIL
base 2000 2000
Cut in yr case 90% 80%
----- ---- ---- -----
1985 2-98 2.98 2.98
1990 3-51 3.51 3.52
1995 4-01 4.01 4.01
2000 4-49 4.49 4.49
?005 3-93 4.01 4.10
2010 3-57 3.72 3.87
2015 3-31 3.52 3.73
2020 3-10 3.36 3.63
2025 2.93 3.24 3.54
2 OYO 2-78 3.13 3.47
2035 2-64 3.03 3.41
2040 2.51 2.94 3.36
2045 2-40 2,; 8.5 3.31
-2050 2 Zg* 2 '7t 3.~7
2055 2 19' 2:71 3. 2'3
2060 2-09 2.64 3.20
2065 2-01 2.59 3.16
2070 1-93 2.53 3.13
2075 1-85 2.48 3.10
Z080 1-78 2.43 3.08
2085 1-71 2.39 3.06
2090 1-65 2.34 3.03
2095 1-60 2.30 3.01
2100 1-54 2.27 3.00

Annex III

REPORT OF THE LEGAL DRAFTING GROUP

INTRODUCTION

To adjust or amend the Protocol or an Annex to the Protocol, proposals must be communicated to the Parties by the Secretariat at least six months before the meeting of the Parties at which they will be proposed for adoption. As one step in this process leading to the preparation of proposals, the legal drafting group attempted to prepare specific proposals for such changes based on proposals made by experts of the Ad Hoe Working Group at their meeting in Nairobi from 28 August-5 September 1989.

This report presents proposals for modifying the Protocol and describes areas where clarification may be necessary or Where legal issues were identified by the drafting group in the proposals suggested by experts of the Ad Hoe Working Group. Modifying the Protocol

The legal drafting group first discussed the three options for modifying the Protocol: adjustments under Article 2 paragraph 9, amendments to the Protocol, and amendments to Annexes.

Specific proposals for modifications

The following sections present article-by-article, proposed changes to the Protocol. Specific proposed language is followed by a brief summary of the discussions of the legal drafting group Which sought to identify issues which may require additional review by the Parties.

The bracketed text below contains new language proposed for addition to the Protocol. Text now in the Protocol was left unbracketed unless it is proposed for deletion; in that case, it is underlined. In many cases, alternative proposals follow one another and are also shown in brackets. Existing text from the Protocol that would be deleted if the proposal were accepted Is underlined. ARTICLE 2: CONTROL KRA UR S

k. Para 1: No proposed changes

B. Para 2: No proposed changes

Comment: While no specific proposals were submitted, the drafting group sought further clarification as to Whether Parties wanted to advance the date at which the freeze on halons takes effect. Given the time required for an adjustment to the Protocol, an acceleration of only less than a year would be possible.

UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1(2)/4 Annex III Page 65

C. Additional language to reduce halons

The following language would be added after Article 2, paragraph 2:

[2 bis. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve month period commencing on 11 January 19951 1/ (1 January 19971 (1 January 20001, and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances listed in Group II of annex A does not exceed [ninety] [fifty] per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1986. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of these substances does not exceed [ninety) [fifty] per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by no more than [to be determined] per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.1

[2 ter. Each Party shall before [1 January] [31 December] [20001 [20051 ensure that its consumption of the substances listed in Group II of Annex A is [eliminated). Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall ensure that, before (I January] [31 December] [19951 [20001 Q0051, its production of the substances is (eliminated). However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization, such level may continue by no more than [to be determined) per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.

(This paragraph will apply unless the Parties determine that essential uses exist for which no alternatives are available at that date, based on information contained in the assessments referred to in Article 6 to be conducted by the Parties in [19941 119981 1. [Notwithstanding the above, in order to satisfy its needs for essential uses, to be determined by the Parties in their Assessments referred to in Article 6, its calculated level of . consumption and production may exceed those limits by no more than [five) per cent of their calculated levels in 1986.1

Comment: The drafting group included provisions to allow limited production increases for industrial rationalization and exports to developing countries that are Parties consistent with existing provisions, but lacked specific guidance on this issue. The group has used the term "elimination" to denote a complete phase-out. This term may require a definition in Article 1.

1/ Bracketed text denotes that alternative proposals have been suggested.

2/ Underlining denotes text now contained in Protocol that is proposed for deletion.

D. Additional reductions of CFCs

3. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on
11 July 19911 11 January 19931 1 July 1993 2/ and in each twelve-month period
thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances
in Group I of Annex A does not exceed annually, eighty [fifty] per cant of its
calculated level of consumption in 1986. Each Party producing one or more of
these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level
of production of the substances does not exceed, annually, eighty (fifty] per
cent of its calculated level of production in 1986. However, in order to
satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and
for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated
level of production may exceed that limit by not more than ten (to be
determined] per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.

(3 bis. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on [1 July 19951 and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A does not exceed, annually, fifteen per cent of its calculated level of consumption in 1986. Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed, annually, fifteen per cent of its calculated-level of production in 1986. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by not more that [to be determined) fifteen per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.1

D ter. Each Party shall ensure that before [I January 20001 (31 December 20001, its consumption of the controlled substances listed in Group I of Annex A is (eliminated.] Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, commencing on 11 January 20001 [31 December 20001, ensure that its production of these substances is [eliminated.] However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of production may continue up to [to be determined) per cent of its calculated level of production in 1986.

[This paragraph will apply unless the Parties determine that essential uses exist for which no alternatives are available at that date, based on information contained in the assessments referred to in Article 6 to be conducted by the Parties in [19941 [19981 1.

[Notwithstanding the above, in order to satisfy its needs for essential uses to be determined by the Parties in their assessments referred to in Article 6, its calculated level of consumption and production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A may exceed those limits until 2005 by not more than [five] per cent of their calculated level In 19861.


[Y. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing [1 January) 11992-4) (1995] 120001 and in each twelve-month period thereafter its consumption of the controlled substance in Group V of Annex A does not exceed, annually, [fifty] [seventy-five] per cent of its consumption in 11986/7/8/9). Each Party producing the controlled substance listed in Group V of Annex A shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 11992-19941 (1995] 120001, and for every twelve-month period thereafter, its production of the controlled substance shall not exceed [fifty) [seventy-five] per cent of Its consumption in [1986/7/8/91. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of Industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by not more than (to be determined I per cent of its production In [1986/7/8/91.

[Z. Each Party shall ensure that by [31 December] [19911 [20001 its consumption of the controlled substance listed In Group V Annex A is [eliminated). Each Party producing this substance shall by [31 December] 119911 (20001 ensure that its production is [eliminated). However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purpose of Industrial rationalization between Parties, its production may continue up to [to be determined) per cent of its level of Production in [1986/7/8/9]. (This paragraph will apply unless-the Parties determine that essential uses exist for Which no alternatives are available at that date, based on Information contained in the assessments referred to in Article 6.1

Comments: same issues as above

I. Add section with limits on other ozone depleting chemicals with ODPs
equal to or greater than
0.01: Group VI of Annex A

The following paragraph would be added to Article 2:

[X. Other ozone-depleting substances with ODPs equal to or greater than [0.011 should be controlled by only allowing their use in critical products and consumption areas, as decided by the Parties.]

Comments: The Drafting Group recomments that the Parties provide additional details to enable it to draft a more specific proposal. Questions concerning what controls over what time period on what chemicals must be more fully addressed. A more detailed discussion of the proposal is contained in CRP.13 for discussion at the next meeting of the working group. The legal drafting group also discussed, but did not resolve, the issue of whether chemicals had to be specified by name in any Annex to the Protocol or whether they could be regulated as a class.

J. Article 2, para.9 (c):
After the existing provisions, add the following:
[Provided that any decision insofar as it affects the Parties operating under Article 5 (1) shall not be taken without the consent of two-thirds of such Parties present and voting.]

Article 2, paragraph 4 would be deleted.

Comment: The legal drafting group has included as an option shifting the control periods for Group I substances to a calendar year. Doing so, would create either one six-month control period (at the time of transition around 1992/3) or two overlapping control periods. The quantity of additional production for Article 5 Parties or for industrial rationalization was also identified as an issue for the Parties to address. The need for continued availability of production increases for "industrial rationalization" following a phase-out was also raised and might no longer be required.

E. Reductions of other fully halogenated CFCs: Group III of Annex A

[Y. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 11 July 19911 11 January 1993 and In each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group III of Annex A does not exceed annually, [fifty] per cent of its calculated level of consumption in (1986/7/8/9). Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the same period, ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed, annually, (fifty) per cent of its calculated level of production in (1986/7/8/91. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of production may exceed that limit by not more than [to be determined] per cent of its calculated level of production in [1986/7/8/9].

M. Each Party shall ensure that before [I January 20001 [31 December 20001 its consumption of the controlled substances listed in Group III of Annex A is eliminated.) Each Party producing one or more of these substances shall, before 11 January 20001 131 December 20001 ensure that its production of these substances is eliminated.] However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of production may continue up to [to be determined] per cent of its calculated level of production in [1986/7/8/9). [This paragraph will apply unless the Parties determine that essential uses exist for which no alternatives are available at that date, based on information contained in the assessments referred to in Article 6 to be conducted by the Parties in.[19941 (19981 1.

Comment: Finally, the group discussed the desirability of specifying chemicals covered by the new Group III addition to Annex A and sought additional guidance from the Parties on this matter. The group also discussed as an alternative adding Group III of Annex A to the control provisions affecting Group I.

F. Limits on carbon tetrachloride: Annex A, Group IV

The following paragraphs would be added to Article 2:

IX. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on R January 19921 [31 December 19921 and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its consumption of the controlled substance listed in Group IV of Annex A shall, for the same periods, not exceed fifty per cent of its


11986/7/8/91 consumption. -Each Party producing this substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its production of this controlled substance does not exceed fifty per cent of its 11986/7/8/9) calculated level of production. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization its production may exceed that limit by not more than (to be determined] per cent of its production in [1986/7/8/91.

[Y. Each Party shall ensure that by [1 January] 131 December] (19951 120001 consumption of the controlled substance listed in group IV of Annex A is eliminated. Each Party producing this substance shall by [1 January [31 December] [19951 [20001 ensure that its production of this substance is [eliminated]. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purpose of Industrial rationalization between Parties, its calculated level of production may continue up to [to be determined) per cent of its production in 11986/7/8/91.

Add carbon tetrachloride and CFC-112 to Annex A. Group I

Carbon tetrachloride and CFC-112 would be added to Annex A, Group I as follows:

Substance ODP

"CC14 carbon tetrachloride 1.1"
'*C2Cl4F2 CFC-112 [unknown]"

Comment: This addition of carbon tetrachloride and CFC-112 to Group I chemicals might be done as an adjustment or an amendment to an Annex (Article 10 of the Convention). The intention is to achieve faster means of regulating this chemical, but questions were raised in the drafting group concerning the applicability of current provisions in Article 2, paragraph 1 to the addition of new chemical to an existing Group in Annex A and whether the procedure would be different.

H. Limits on methyl chloroform: Group V of Annex A

The following paragraphs would be added to Article 2:

JX. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing, six months after entry into force of this Amendment and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its consumption of the controlled substance listed in Group V of Annex A does not exceed its 11986/7/8/9) consumption. Each Party producing this substance shall ensure that its production of the controlled substances, for the same periods, does not exceed its (1986/7/8/91 production. However, in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of Industrial rationalization between Parties, its production may exceed that limit by not more than (to be determined] per cent of production in [1986/7/8/91.

Comment: Further clarification may be required concerning the definition of "affects. "

K. General note of clarification on Article 2
While not suggesting a specific proposal for amendment:

A number of delegations from developing countries expressed the view that any amendment to Article 2 of Protocol aimed at accelerating the reduction and elimination of production and consumption of controlled substances or at including new substances, must not involve treatment less favourable than the differential and preferential treatment currently established In Articles 2 and 5. In addition, these delegations stated that the application to developing countries of Article 2, in its current form or with amendments, or of other related provisions must necessarily entail the adoption of a financial mechanism, for example an international fund, to enable the developing countries to meet their obligations under the Protocol.

L. Article 2. paragraph 5 - 25 kilotonne transactions

Any Party whose calculated level of production in 1986 of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A was less than twenty-five kilotonnes may, for the purposes of industrial rationalization, transfer to or receive from any other Party calculated level production in excess of the limits set out In paragraph 1, 121 3 and 4, provided that the total combined calculated levels of production of the Parties concerned does not exceed the production limits set out in this Article. Any transfer of such production shall be notified to the Secretariat no later than the time of the transfer.

Comments: The drafting group discussed whether it would be desirable to eliminate all references to the terms "industrial rationalization" in the control paragraphs in Article 2. Such allowances might now prove redundant with the proposed change in this paragraph. The Group concluded that this was a matter for further discussion by the Parties.

Article 3: calculation of control measures

A. Article 3, subpara.(e) would be amended as follows:
Consumption by adding together Its calculated levels of production and
imports and substracting its calculated level of exports as determined in
accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b). However, beginning on
1 January 1993 [19911, any export of controlled substances to non-parties
shall not be substracted In calculating the consumption level of the
exporting Party.

Comment: The Drafting Group questioned whether the process for this
amendment to the Protocol could be completed before
I January 1991.'


ARTICLE 4: CONTROL OF TRADE WITH NON-PARTIES

A. Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2 would be changed as follows:
2. Begining on 1 January 1993 119911, no Party [operating under
Paragraph 1 of Article 5
may export any controlled substance to any
State not party to this Protocol.

B. Paragraph 4 would be changed as follows:

The Parties shall, following the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention elaborate in an Annex by the end of 1991 a list of products produced with or containing controlled substances. Parties that have not objected to this Annex in accordance with the procedures in Article 10 of the Convention shall ban. within one year (31 December 1992) of the annex having become effective the import of such products from any State not party to the Protocol.

13. Additional changes to paragraphs 3 and 4.
At the end of each of the paragraphs, add the following:
[or any Party which is in non-compliance as determined tinder Article 8.1

Comment: Preliminary indications are that this issue has been discussed by the Working Group of Legal Experts on Article 8 non-compliance procedures and that they will propose a different approach at the June 1990 meeting of the Parties.

D. Paragraph 5

Paragraph 5 would be amended as follows:

5. Each Party shall discourage [ban) the export, to any State not party to this Protocol. of technology for producing and for utilizing controlled substances.

E. Paragraph 6

Paragraph 6 would be amended as follows:

Each Party shall refrain from Providing [ban] new subsidies, aid, credits, guarantees or insurance programmes for the export to States not party to this Protocol of products, equipment, plants or technology that would facilitate the production of controlled substances.

Article 5: special situation of developing countries

A. Paragraph 1 would be replaced as follows:

15 (1) "The control measures set out in paragraphs I to 4 of Article 2 shall not apply to any Party that is a developing country and whose annual calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances is less than 0.3 kg. per capita on the date of the entry into force of the Protocol for it, or

any time thereafter within ten years of the date of entry into force of the Protocol. However, such a Party shall not exceed an annual calculated level of consumption of [0.31 [less than [0.31 or a different figure for different developing countries] kg. per capita and shall initiate promptly and take all necessary steps to implement the objectives of the Protocol by utilising all technology and resources accessible to it for transition away from the controlled substances. [Any such Party shall be entitled to use either the average of its annual calculated level of consumption for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive on a calculated level of consumption of 0.3 kilogrammes per capita whichever is the lower, as th2 basis for its compliance with the control measures.]

15 (1) bis "A meeting of the Parties shall review the situation in respect of Parties operating under this Article in 1999, taking into account the progress in the research and development of substitutes for CFCs, the technology for using such substitutes, the availability of such technologies to the developing countries and the situation of actual use of technologies by the Parties operating under this clause and their special needs of economic development and adopt such provisions regarding production and consumption of controlled substances as are feasible and necessary to meet the objectives of the Protocol"].

A new article would be added as follows:

[The Parties undertake to facilitate access of adequate information on products containing or requiring for operation, one or more of the controlled substances, before such are exported to Parties operating under Article 5. Any Party that exports any such products to a Party operating under Article 5 without providing information on any controlled substances contained in or required for operation of the product shall, if requested by the Party operating under Article 5, provide either (a) substitute substances for the product that are not controlled; or (b) a substitute product that does not contain or require the use of controlled substances [without any extra cost].

Amendment of Article 5 (2):

The Parties [that are developed countries] undertake to facilitate access to environmentally safe and [technologically and economically] [feasible] [alternative substances and technology for Parties that are developing countries and assist them to make expeditious use of such alternatives.]

Add New Article 5 (3):

For the purpose of the Protocol, the Parties that are developed countries undertake through the establishment of an effective financial mechanism to provide the developing countries with sufficient financial assistance to permit them to meet the increased burden arising from their transition to non-ozone-depleting substances and alternative technologies, so that they may be able to become Parties to the Protocol as early as possible. The establishment of the above mechanism shall not preclude the provision of subsidies, aid, credits, guarantees or insurance programmes for the same purpose through bilateral or multilateral channels.

Add new Article 5 (4):

4. After the Parties consider and adopt the expanded list of controlled
substances in Annex A of the Protocol and the acceleration of the control
process as provided by the Protocol, the Parties that are developed
countries shall ensure that the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 above
and the expanded list of controlled substances and the acceleration of
the control process be accordingly implemented simultaneously.

Article 7: Reporting of Data

A. Reporting of Imports and Exports for Regional Economic integration
organizations.

The following addition to article 7 was proposed:

[3. For Parties operating under the provision of Article 2 paragraph 8 (a) the requirements in paragraph 2 of this Article in respect of statistical data on imports and exports shall be satisfied if the regional economic integration organization concerned provides data on trade between the organization and States that are not members of that organization.]

B. Addition of Reporting of HCFCs/HFCs

Comment: Biennial reporting of data appears to be required under Decision 2 of the meeting of the Parties of the Vienna Convention. In addition, if HCFCs are included under the Protocol as controlled substances, reporting would automatically be required. However, the approach would not include reporting of HFCs.

Article 10: Technical Assistance

A new paragraph would be added to accomplish the following:

The provisions for technical assistance do not specifically provide for the transfer of technology for substitute substances, raw-materials required for manufacturing of such substances, the equipment and products using such substances, modifications for user equipment etc. There should be specific and comprehensive mention of these aspects in the Protocol. The Working Group at its next meeting on technical assistance work plans is expected to work out the details. The new article can be drafted only after the Working Group completes its work.

Article 13: Financial Provisions

The following new paragraphs would be added:

The incremental costs to be incurred by the Parties to the Protocol operating under Article 5 (1) for meeting their obligations under the Protocol shall be compensated to such Parties, till such obligations are fulfilled, in the following manner:

(a) Each of the Parties operating under Article 5 (1) may present to the Secretariat of the Protocol an estimate of such incremental costs at Least a year in advance of the incidence of such costs;

(b) The funds required for paying compensation shall be contributed fully by the Parties not operating under Article 5 (1), each such Party contributing in each year in proportion to its consumption of controlled substances in 1986, at least six months in advance of the requirement of funds;

(c) Every four years a Committee shall be established by the Parties, for a four year term, with equal representation of Parties operating under Article 5 (1) and other Parties. The Committee shall scrutinise the estimates and decide on the compensation to be paid to each of the Parties operating under Article 5. (1). The Secretariat of the Protocol shall disburse the compensation each year, in accordance with the decisions of this Committee.

Article 19: Withdrawal

Article 19 would be amended as follows:

For the purposes of this Protocol, the provisions-of Article 19 of the Convention relating to the withdrawal shall apply, except with respect to Parties referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 5. Any such Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary at any time after four years of assuming the obligations specified in paragraphs 1 to 4 of article 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year after the date of its receipt by the Depositary, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of the withdrawal.

Comment: Because paragraph 4 of article 19 of the Convention states that any Party that withdraws from the Convention automatically is withdrawn from any Protocol, the intended goal of article 19 may not be realized. The legal drafting group suggests additional review of this issue by the Parties.

PREAMBULAR PARAGRAPHS

The following changes were proposed:

Preambular Paratraph 6: the last phrase should read:

"Taking into account technical, economic [and developmental] considerations."

Preambular Paragraph 7: Add at the end [" ... including the provision of new and additional (adequate) financial resources and access to relevant technologies."]

Preambular Paragraph 9: Replace:

"Considering the importance of promotions international 6o-operation-in
to - .
the research and development of science and technology ....

["Considering the importance of promoting international co-operation in the research, development and transfer of (alternative) technologies."]

Proposed changes to Annex A

Group III - Other fully halogenated CFCs
Group IV - Carbon tetrachloride
Group V - Methyl chloroform
Group VI - Other Ozone-depleting Chemicals with ODP equal to or
Greater than 0.01

Ozone Access Statistics Visitors Count Back to Ozone Homepage Contact Webmaster - Ozoneinfo@Unep.org