Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the parties to the Montreal Protocol

Distr.
GENERAL

UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/16/2
15 September 1997

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER

Sixteenth meeting

Montreal, 9-15 September 1997

REPORT OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING OF THE OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

I. OPENING OF THE MEETING

  1. The sixteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol was held at the headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Montreal, from 9 to 15 September 1997.

  2. The meeting was opened at 10.15 a.m. on Tuesday, 9 September 1997.

  3. Speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada, Ms. Karen Kraft-Sloan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Environment, welcomed all participants to the meeting. She recalled that 10 years previously Montreal had hosted a meeting that had resulted in a global undertaking to save the Earth's protective ozone layer. It was now the time to reflect on progress made and renew the pledge to continue that work until the ozone layer was restored. Canada was strongly committed to continuing its role as an active participant in that global undertaking. In 1987, a debate had raged over whether to take immediate action to protect the ozone layer or to wait until all scientific and economic research was completed. At that time, there was no strong agreement among the scientific community and it was a credit to scientists and researchers that their intensified efforts had made a compelling case for action which continued to be developed and strengthened.

  4. One thing had been clear at that time: only concerted international efforts and partnerships would help resolve the problem. Noting that the week was a time to reflect on what had been accomplished during the past decade and what was needed for the future, she recalled that among the important issues before the meeting were those of methyl bromide controls and related trade control measures and the review of the 1992 compliance procedure. The success of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties depended on the preparatory work accomplished by the Working Group, and she urged the participants to agree on strong, effective action to ensure that the momentum of work to protect the ozone layer would continue and grow stronger in the second decade of the Protocol.

  5. Speaking on behalf of Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Executive Director of UNEP, Mr.áK. Madhava Sarma, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat, welcomed participants to the meeting. He expressed gratitude to the Government of Canada for its detailed planning and for the various activities it had arranged. He also extended thanks to the Governments of Austria, Canada, Denmark, European Union, Finland, Germany, Netherlands and Norway for their assistance in financing participation in the meeting of more developing and Eastern European countries than budgeted for, and to those Governments that had contributed their share to the trust funds and provided sufficient funds for the Secretariat to discharge its duties. He appealed to all Parties to clear their arrears to the trust funds.

  6. At the current meeting, the Working Group had before it two important documents: a set of draft decisions based on conclusions on various issues or proposals made by Parties during the Working Group's fifteenth meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6 and Add.1); and a consolidated document containing proposals submitted by the Parties for adjustments and amendments to the Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/INF.1). The recommendations of the Legal Drafting Group and the Implementation Committee would guide the meeting on legal and compliance issues.

  7. Observing that the most important issue before the meeting was probably that of control measures on methyl bromide, he first stated that, contrary to what had appeared in some media, the Secretariat circulated the report of the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) as it had been written by the Panel. Critics of the reports had, and still did have, the opportunity to present their point of view to the Meeting. There were several reasons why advancing the phase-out date of methyl bromide in developed countries and setting a phase-out date in the developing countries were important, notably the critical depletion of the ozone layer and the fact that methyl bromide was an extremely toxic pesticide.

  8. Another important item before the Working Group was that of illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances, to curb which a proposal on a licensing systems was before the meeting for consideration, together with a related draft decision concerning the use of international customs codes to identify specific substances and mixtures. There was also the issue of the introduction into the market of new ozone-depleting substances which were not controlled by the Protocol, and the use of controlled substances as chemical process agents.

  9. He stressed that the key to monitoring the implementation of and compliance with the Montreal Protocol was accurate and timely reporting of data. The Implementation Committee would shortly be reporting on the streamlining of reporting requirements and the simplification of reporting forms. As of August 1997, 113 countries had reported data for 1995, and 38 had not yet submitted their reports. Only 43 had reported their data for 1996. Clearly the reporting had to improve.

  10. Noting that 165 countries had so far ratified the Vienna Convention, 162 had ratified the Montreal Protocol, 116 its London Amendment and only 67 the Copenhagen Amendment, he emphasized that the slow pace of ratification of the Copenhagen Amendment was a matter of concern. Finally he recalled that successful implementation of the provisions of the Protocol ultimately hinged on the financial health of the trust funds. He urged all Parties to pay their contributions as soon as possible, observing that as of 31 August 1997 collection of contributions for 1997 of the Parties to the Trust Funds of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol as well as the Multilateral Fund amounted to only 26 per cent.

    II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

    A. Attendance

  11. The following Parties to the Montreal Protocol were present: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, European Community, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, NewáZealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

  12. Observers for the following United Nations secretariat units, bodies and specialized agencies were also present: secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, secretariat of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Drug Control Programme, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), World Bank, World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

  13. The following other organizations were also represented: 3MáPharmaceuticals, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ACRI), Albermarle Corporation, Allergy & Asthma Network, Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (ARAP), Allied Signal, American Lung Association (ALA), Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development CANGOC, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA), Boehringer Ingelheim, Bromine Compounds Ltd., California Strawberry Commission, Canadian Institute of Fisheries Technology, Cannon, Carrier Corporation, Centre Patronale de l'Environnement du Qu‰bec, Chemical Manufacturer NAFGT Inc., Chlorine Institute, Columbia University, Crop Protection Coalition, Codeff-FOE-Chile, Dehon Service, Diamantina Technology, Dried Fruit Association of California, Dupont Company, ELF Atochem, Environmental Health Coalition, Environmental Investigation Agency, European Association of Soil Fumigators (SAFE), European Chemical Industry Federation (CEFIC), Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Associations of Japan (FPMAJ), Friends of the Earth, Glaxco Wellcome P&C, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Greenpeace, Halon Alternatives Research Corporation (HARC), Hedley Technologies Inc., Indian Chemical Manufacturers' Association, Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC), International Society of Doctors for the Environment, International Trade Information Service, Japan Association for Hygiene of Chlorinated Solvents (JAHCS), Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association, Japan Fluorocarbon Manufacturers' Association (JFMA), Japan Industrial Conference on Cleaning, Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry Association (JRAIA), Japan's Save the Ozone Network (JASON), Jung-Il International, Korean Speciality Chemical Industry Association (KSCIA), Lennox International Inc., Les C‰l‰brations du 10e Anniversaire du Protocole de Montr‰al, Maheu et Maheu Inc., Maua Institute of Technology, Methyl Bromide Global Coalition (MBGC), Methyl Bromide Working Group (MBWG), National Refrigerants, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Pesticide Action Network North America, Penac Trading A.G. Switzerland, Rapalmira, Rapam, Refrigerant and Manufacturers' Association, RhŸne-Poulenc Rorer, Safe, Sanko Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., Schering-Plough Corp., Soci‰t‰ Pour Vaincre la Pollution (SVP), South African Pulmonology Society, Stop (Montreal), Technology Development Foundation (TDF), The Pesticides Trust, Trane Company, Trical, United Farmworkers of America, University of Natal, Vulcan Materials Company.

    B. Officers

  14. Ms C. Garcia-Mosler (Mexico) and Ms C. Fearnley (New Zealand) served as Co-Chairs of the meeting, in accordance with decision VIII/27 of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

  15. Ms Annie Ilett (Australia) served as Rapporteur for the meeting.

    C. Adoption of the agenda

  16. The following agenda was adopted on the basis of the provisional agenda contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/16/1:

    1. Opening of the meeting:
        (a) Statement by the representative of the Government of Canada;

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

    2. Organizational matters:
        (a) Adoption of the agenda;

        (b) Organization of work.

    3. Consideration of the report of the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties and the report of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties on the work of its fifteenth meeting, taking into account the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the draft decisions proposed by the Secretariat on:
        (a) Implementation of the decisions of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties;

        (b) Status of ratification of the Montreal Protocol;

        (c) Other implementation matters:
        (i) Implementation of the Protocol by the Parties;
        (ii) Membership of the Implementation Committee;

        (d) (i) Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;

        (ii) Membership of the Executive Committee;

        (e) Consideration of the amendments and adjustments proposed by Parties relating to, inter alia, carbon tetrachloride, hydrochlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide;

        (f) Essential-use exemptions:
        (i) Use of controlled substances and availability of alternatives for laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances;
        (ii) Quantity of controlled substances authorized under the essential-use process;
        (iii) Development and implementation of national transition strategies in non-Article 5 Parties for non-CFC treatments of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
        (iv) Allowing greater flexibility in the transfer of essential-use authorizations between Parties;
        (v) Allowing the production of CFCs for medical applications on a periodic "campaign basis";

        (g) Control of exports of ozone-depleting substances:
        (i) Issues relating to trade in ozone-depleting substances and products containing ozone-depleting substances;
        (ii) Use of customs codes for imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances.

    4. Report of the Secretariat on information by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 and 9 of the Montreal Protocol, and the report of the Implementation Committee on:

      (a) Revised formats for reporting data under Article 7 of the Protocol;

      (b) Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and others, if any.

    5. Application of the Republic of Moldova for classification as a developing country.

    6. Consideration of the report of the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol:

      (a) Action to improve the functioning of the Financial Mechanism;

      (b) Study on technology transfer;

      (c) Reducing the agency support costs of the Implementing Agencies of the Multilateral Fund;

      (d) Term of membership of the Executive Committee.

    7. Other issues arising out of the report of the Open-ended Working Group on the work of its fifteenth meeting.

    8. Arrears in the contributions to the Multilateral Fund by the Parties not operating under Article 5 that had not ratified the London Amendment prior to the Eighth Meeting of the Parties.

    9. Report by the Ozone Secretariat on utilization of the funds for the participation of experts from developing countries and countries with their economies in transition in the meetings of the Assessment Panels and the Technical Options Committees.

    10. Report by the United Nations Environment Programme on the ways in which the 13 per cent programme support costs charged by the United Nations Environment Programme to the Trust Fund budget have been used for the benefit of the Convention and its Secretariat.

    11. Financial report for 1996 and the revised 1998 and proposed 1999 budgets for the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund.

    12. Date and venue of the seventeenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and the Tenth Meeting of the Parties.

    13. Other matters.

    14. Adoption of the report.

    15. Closure of the meeting.

    D. Organization of work

  17. On the suggestion of the Co-Chair, the Working Group agreed first to consider the draft decisions contained in document UNEP/Ozl.Pro.9/6 and Add.1 as a basis for its work, together with the related proposals for adjustments contained in document UNEP/Ozl.Pro.9/INF.1.

    III. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT DECISIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

    Production baseline for Article 5 Parties in respect of Annex A and B substances

  18. The Working Group first considered the proposal of India, as amended by the United States of America, to add new subparagraphs (c) and (d) to Articleá5, paragraph 3, of the Protocol, defining the production baselines for Article 5 Parties in respect of the controlled substances in Annex A andáB (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/INF.1, sect. I).

  19. One representative said that the proposal was an amendment because it introduced new concepts into the Protocol, while another recalled that the proposed baselines had already been agreed by the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, and addition of the new subparagraphs would therefore be an adjustment.

  20. The two representatives agreed to continue consultations on this question and report back to the Working Group.

  21. At the final session of the meeting, the Working Group, noting that no agreement had yet been reached on the issue, agreed that the concerned representatives would continue their consultations and report directly to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.

    Carbon tetrachloride

  22. The Working Group then took up the proposal of Australia for the insertion of additional subparagraphs after paragraph 8 bis (b) of Article 5 of the Protocol with the purpose of providing interim reduction steps in phasing out carbon tetrachloride in Article 5 countries (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/INF.1, sect. II). The representative of Australia confirmed that this proposal should be considered as an adjustment to the Protocol. Several representatives expressed support for the proposal, while others recalled that the phase-out for Annex A and B substances had been decided in 1995 and suggested that the best time to review this matter would be in 1999 when the next report of the Assessment Panels on the subject would be received. Another representative, agreeing that no decision should be taken until the report from TEAP was received, suggested that that report be requested earlier than 1999, while another representative emphasized that it would be necessary to ensure that there would be adequate financial assistance during any transition.

  23. The Co-Chair requested Australia to continue its discussions on the subject with interested colleagues and report back to the Working Group.

  24. At the final session of the meeting, the Working Group, noting that no agreement had been reached on the issue, agreed that the concerned representatives would continue their consultations and report directly to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbons

  25. The representatives of the European Community and Switzerland introduced their respective proposals for adjustments and amendments to the Montreal Protocol with respect to hydrochlorofluorocarbons (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/INF.1, sect.áIII). The proposal of the European Community would involve, for Parties not operating under Articleá5, a reduction in the level of the HCFC cap from 2.8 per cent to 2 per cent and an accelerated phase-out schedule for the consumption of HCFCs consisting of interim reductions of 60 per cent by 2007, 80 per cent by 2010 and 95 per cent by 2012, with a final phase-out by 2015. The Swiss proposal focused on the institution of controls on the production of HCFCs, in addition to the current controls on consumption, for all Parties.

  26. The representative of the European Community said that the European Community and its member States remained convinced that further controls on HCFCs would lead to considerable environmental benefits, a conclusion that had been supported by the findings of the last scientific assessment. Tight controls would also expedite the transition to available alternatives and augment efforts to fulfil the spirit of Article 2F, paragraph 7, of the Protocol. Within Europe, Austria, Denmark, Germany and Sweden were phasing out HCFCs by 2002 or earlier. However, additional efforts to advance HCFC controls within the European Community and its member States would be negatively impacted by lack of such action by the Parties.

  27. The representative of Switzerland emphasized the need to establish the principle of production controls for HCFCs, as already imposed on other controlled substances. The Ninth Meeting of the Parties represented a unique opportunity for establishing such a principle within the Protocol, as it was highly unlikely that a further Amendment would be concluded until many years after the present one.

  28. Some representatives, including a representative of a non-governmental organization, expressed support for the strengthening of controls on HCFCs for Parties not operating under Article 5. In their view such measures would have important environmental benefits, were technically and economical feasible, and would promote a wider and more rapid transition to non-ODS alternatives. One representative emphasized that the lack of production controls on HCFCs and continued aggressive marketing might lead to rapid and unnecessary increases in HCFC use.

  29. Many representatives expressed opposition to the proposal on strengthening the consumption phase-out schedule, many of them stating that it ran counter to the basic principle that any change in the Protocol must bring with it significant environmental benefits, particularly if it involved major costs and social and economic disruption. Several of those representatives said that the 1994 scientific assessment had indicated that further controls on HCFC would bring only marginal environmental benefits. A number of those representatives noted the important role that HCFCs have played in the transition from more harmful CFCs and the need to continue eliminating the use of CFCs in Parties operating under Article 5. Some also expressed opposition to the proposed introduction of the principle of production controls on HCFCs into the Protocol.

  30. Several representatives expressed the view that the constructive partnership with industry, which had been one of the keys to the success of the Montreal Protocol, could be undermined by the introduction of further controls. Such measures could actually serve to punish many in industry and the broader public who had taken lead positions in rapidly moving away from CFCs. It would also undermine the desired stability in the Protocol regime and, in the view of one representative, have negative spill-over impacts on other forums where policy makers might need to ask citizens and industry to take bold steps to protect the environment.

  31. Several representatives welcomed the announcement that other Parties, like themselves, were taking measures to phase out particular uses of HCFCs in advance of the requirements of the Protocol, but the particular situations that made such measures possible could not be generalized to all Parties, especially given the control measures already in place. Several representatives also stated that while the issue of adjusting controls on HCFCs was at present premature, the issue could perhaps be reopened when more information was available regarding the technical and economic aspects of such transitions. Others expressed the view that the current controls on HCFCs in Parties not operating under Article 5 had proven a success and should not be revisited.

  32. Following the discussion, it was decided that the representatives of the European Community and Switzerland should consult with interested delegations and report back to the Working Group at a later stage.

  33. Subsequently, the representative of Switzerland introduced a revised draft amendment and related draft decision on controls on HCFC production. Following discussion of the proposal at its final session, the Working Group agreed with the suggestion of the Co-Chair that significant divisions remained concerning these and other issues concerning HCFCs and that the concerned representatives should continue their consultations and report back to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.

    Control of trade in HCFCs

  34. Introducing a proposal on the control of trade in HCFCs, the representative of the European Community noted that in its letter to UNEP on proposed amendments and adjustments, the European Community had proposed that Articleá4 restrictions on trade with non-Parties be extended to methyl bromide. It had also proposed that a clause be incorporated in the Protocol to enable these trade controls to be extended to HCFCs with effect from a date to be agreed by decision of the Parties at one of their subsequent meetings. The consolidated text proposed adjustments and amendments to the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/Ozl.Pro.9/INF.1), while taking up proposals by the European Community in relation to methyl bromide did not contain a text proposal in relation to HCFCs. The European Community therefore proposed that the following paragraph be inserted after paragraph 1 qua of Articleá4 of the Protocol:
    "Commencing at a date to be agreed by decision of the Parties at a meeting following the entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the import of any controlled substance in GroupáI of AnnexáC from any State not party to this Protocol";
    and that the following paragraph be inserted after paragraph 2 qua of Articleá4 of the Protocol:
    "Commencing at a date to be agreed by decision of the Parties at a meeting following the entry into force of this paragraph, each Party shall ban the export of any controlled substances in GroupáI of AnnexáC to any State not party to this Protocol."

  35. The representative emphasized that the intention of these amendments was to create an enabling environment.

  36. One representative suggested that the proposal as currently formulated might lead to a situation in which a decision was never taken, and proposed alternative wording for the first half of each of the two proposed new paragraphs. Another representative said that his delegation opposed the control of trade in HCFCs.

  37. In response to a question, the representative of Secretariat clarified that a "non-Party" in the context of HCFCs was a country which had not ratified the Copenhagen Amendment.

  38. The Co-Chair requested the representatives of the European Community and other interested delegations to consult further on the language of the proposal.

  39. At the final session of the meeting, the Working Group, noting that no agreement had been reached on the issue, agreed that the concerned delegations would continue their consultations and report directly to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties on the outcome.

    Methyl bromide

  40. In considering the proposals for amendments and adjustments to the Protocol regarding control schedules on the consumption and production of methyl bromide and trade in methyl bromide submitted by Canada and by the United States of America, and the proposals developed during the fifteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (UNEP/Ozl.Pro.9/INF.1, sect. IV), as well as draft decision IX/2, on critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide, and draft decisionáIX/3, on emergency methyl-bromide use, as contained in document UNEP/Ozl.Pro.9/6, many representatives noted the importance that strengthening controls on methyl bromide would have for protecting the ozone layer. Many favoured accelerating the phase-out date for the production and consumption of methyl bromide in Parties not operating under Article 5 to 2005, with an interim reduction of 50 per cent by 2001. Others expressed support for strengthening the controls but did not offer support for specific dates. Several representatives supported advancing the phase-out date for non-Article 5 countries to 2001, while some expressed specific support for retaining the current control schedule.

  41. Many representatives also expressed support for strengthening controls on the production and consumption of methyl bromide in Parties operating under Article 5, with several emphasizing that such measures would phase out only the environmental damage done by methyl bromide, without adverse impacts on the underlying agricultural production. Many representatives expressed support for setting phase-out dates as soon as possible but declined to support particular dates. Several other representatives expressed specific support for the Canadian proposal for a phase-out by 2011. Many representatives reiterated their concurrence with the statement in the TEAP report that no significant technical or economic obstacles existed that prevented the establishment of uniform controls on methyl bromide for both Article 2 and Articleá5 Parties. On that basis, some representatives expressed support for a global phase-out of methyl bromide by 2001, as in the United States proposal. Many other representatives expressed strong support for retaining a 10-year grace-period for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, noting that, in their view, the fundamental principle of common but differential responsibility must be included in any discussion of control measures for Parties operating under Article 5.

  42. Many representatives expressed the view that the freeze on the production and consumption of methyl bromide in Parties operating under Articleá5 was adequate at present. In their view, discussion of further controls should await the results of ongoing demonstration projects and other preliminary transition efforts so that Parties operating under Article 5 would have sufficient information regarding the availability of proven, reliable and cost-effective alternatives to methyl bromide that was relevant to their particular geographic and agricultural characteristics. Many of these representatives stated that additional assistance from the Multilateral Fund and clear provisions for technology transfer would be required before future controls on the production and use of methyl bromide by Parties operating under Article 5 could be agreed to and implemented. Some representatives emphasized that their opposition to additional controls reflected very real concerns regarding food security in their countries.

  43. Regarding baseline years, some representatives expressed support for changing the baseline for the freeze on the production and consumption of methyl bromide for Article 5 Parties to 1995-1997, as contained in the proposed adjustment by Canada. Some other representatives expressed opposition to that proposal, supporting the retention of the 1995-1998 baseline.

  44. Regarding control exemptions, many representatives expressed support for retaining the current exemptions for methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment applications. Many also expressed support for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide, with several referring to the need for a clearer definition of "critical use". Many representatives expressed specific support for the approach developed during the fifteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, as contained in draft decision IX/2. Some expressed concern that exemptions must not weaken controls on methyl bromide or the Protocol's existing concept of essential uses. One representative expressed support for draft decision IX/2 provided it was the understanding of the Parties that:

      (a) Each country would make its own determination regarding the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives, as well as the extent of significant market disruptions of failing to use methyl bromide;

      (b) The specific conditions of each country would be considered in examining nominations for essential use exemptions; and

      (c) The process for nominating and approving essential use exemptions would be clear and not impose significant costs or obstacles on the Party submitting the nomination.

  45. Regarding trade controls, many representatives expressed support for establishing a ban on the trade of methyl bromide with non-Parties. At the same time, many of these same representatives expressed opposition to proposals to extend the trade controls to products containing methyl bromide, or to products made with, but not containing, methyl bromide.

  46. The representatives of two non-governmental organizations expressed support for significantly strengthening controls on methyl bromide, including the establishment of near-term phase-out dates for all Parties, and for providing adequate financial and technological assistance for Parties operating under Article 5. In their view, actions short of these goals would be seen as unacceptable failures by Governments who had chosen to protect narrow economic interests rather than human health, the global environment and future generations.

  47. The representative of a non-governmental organization, speaking on behalf of agricultural groups in his country, expressed opposition to the proposed changes in controls on methyl bromide. In was the view of his organization that effective and cost-efficient alternatives to most uses of methyl bromide still did not exist and that conclusions to the contrary in the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee report were based on flawed methodology and analysis.

  48. Following the initial discussion, it was agreed that the representative of Venezuela would convene an open-ended subgroup with all interested delegations in an attempt to resolve outstanding areas of disagreement.

  49. The representative of Venezuela, as chair of the open-ended subgroup, subsequently reported that while significant progress had been made, there remained at least one major area of disagreement. The subgroup was accordingly recommending that a small group, consisting of three representatives from each of the two groups (Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties), be set up to continue the negotiations.

  50. The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of a group of like-minded non-Article 5 Parties, said that the Parties on whose behalf he was speaking had developed the following five-point proposal for methyl bromide phase-out:

      (a) A phase-out of production and consumption of methyl bromide in non-Article 5 Parties no later than 2005 with substantive interim cuts, conditional on an early phase-out in Article 5 Parties;

      (b) An effective critical-use exemption system after phase-out;

      (c) A commitment to fund the incremental costs of phase-out in Article 5 Parties, including demonstration projects, through the Multilateral Fund;

      (d) A ban on trade in methyl bromide with non-Parties as set out in the draft amendment in section G of UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/INF.1; and

      (e) An adjustment in the methyl-bromide baseline for Article 5 Parties to 1995-1997.

  51. The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, as spokesperson for the Group of 77 and China, outlined the Group's three point proposal on methyl bromide issues:

      (a) The issue of base year for Article 5 Parties had been satisfactorily addressed in the Seventh Meeting of the Parties in 1995, taking into account concerns of the Non-Article 5 Parties regarding that significant year. The issue should not be reopened;

      (b) The Group of 77 and China would agree to a 5 per cent reduction by the year 2005 on condition that:
      (i) Additional Multilateral Fund resources over and above those currently budgeted in the three-year plan of the Multilateral Fund be provided immediately for, inter alia, demonstration and investment projects undertaken by Articleá5 Parties;
      (ii) An evaluation of alternative technology be made following the demonstration projects in methyl bromide, and technology alternatives be expeditiously transferred to the Article 5 Parties under favourable and fair terms to enable them to carry out the methyl bromide control measures;
      (iii) Funding for methyl bromide have no restrictions in terms of cost-effectiveness and be on a grant basis;
      (iv) Future replenishment of the Multilateral Fund take into account the requirement of financial resources to enable Article 5 Parties to meet the methyl bromide control schedule, bearing in mind condition (c) above; and
      (v) A review of the methyl bromide control schedule in respect of Article 5 Parties take place in the year 2005, bearing in mind the requirement of decision VII/8, Article 5(8), and the conditions mentioned in (a) to (d) above; and

      (c) All Parties be urged to take steps voluntarily to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions as far as practicable, and additional financial resources from the Multilateral Fund should be made available for that purpose.

  52. The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of his group, expressed great disappointment that the Group of 77 and China had not been able to agree on a phase-out date for Article 5 Parties. He expressed the view that the Parties had come to Montreal in good faith to agree to such a phase-out, particularly in the light of the report from TEAP, proposals from two Parties suggesting phase-out dates of 2001 and 2011, and the discussions at the fifteenth meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group which indicated broad acceptance of the need for a phase-out. His Group had been very encouraged by statements made by some Article 5 Parties in the subgroup which had seemed to indicate that their's was only an initial position, that they understood the strong desire to see a phase-out date agreed at the current meeting and wished to negotiate to achieve that result. His group was prepared to negotiate in good faith and would willingly participate in any small group that might be set up, noting that perhaps a slightly larger membership might be needed to enable representation of the full range of his group's interests.

  53. The representative of the European Community, speaking on behalf of the Community and its member States, said that the 5 per cent reduction by 2005 proposed by the Group of 77 and China was entirely inadequate. It would not contribute in any meaningful way to the protection of the ozone layer, would not in any way match the proposed phase-out dates and cuts in Article 2 countries, and would not reflect the availability of alternatives nor possible critical-use exemptions. No one could leave this meeting unashamed if that was the final outcome. He very much hoped that further negotiations, in good faith and on a more constructive basis, would take place. The European Community wished to be represented in any small group that might be set up to carry out those negotiations.

  54. The representative of New Zealand, speaking on behalf of the Valdivia Group of Southern Hemisphere temperate countries, comprising Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, New Zealand, South Africa and Uruguay, reiterated the firm intention of those countries to work towards an appropriate advancement of the phase-out schedule for methyl bromide for developed countries. They felt strongly that the Ninth Meeting of the Parties should agree to a phase-out date for methyl bromide that was appropriate for Article 5 countries. They noted that the phase-out of methyl bromide in Article 5 countries would require appropriate financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund and assistance in capacity-building activities. They looked forward to working with other delegations towards early resolution and appropriate decisions on those important issues at this Meeting of Parties.

  55. The Working Group decided to set up a small group, consisting of representatives from Australia, China, Egypt, the European Community, Mexico and the United States, to continue the negotiations aimed at resolving the remaining methyl bromide issues.

  56. Subsequently, at the final session of the meeting, it was decided to expand this group to include Brazil, China, Egypt, Kenya, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Australia, Canada, the European Community, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and that this group would report back to the Meeting of the Parties.

    Licensing system for trade in controlled substances

  57. Introducing draft decision IX/4, on the establishment of a licensing system for trade in controlled substances, contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6, and the related text in the consolidated paper containing proposals for adjustments and amendments to the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/INF.1, sect. V), the representative of Australia, speaking in his capacity of Facilitator of the Licensing Subgroup that had met during the fifteenth meeting of the Working Group, said that at the fifteenth meeting of the Working Group there had been general agreement on the need for some form of licensing system, but that three issues had not been resolved: whether the proposed licensing system should apply only to substances in Annexes A and B or also to those in annexes C and E; whether the non-establishment of a licensing system by a Party should have any trade consequences; and whether there should be any form of notification between exporting and importing countries or any cross-checking of information.

  58. Most representatives who spoke supported the idea of some form of licensing system, some stating that there was no way to control illegal trade in ODSs without it, and that it would be significantly more effective than control attempted through the use of customs codes. One representative pointed out that, in addition to its main purpose of preventing illegal trade, a licensing system was also a useful tool in ensuring that accurate information on imports and exports was obtained and reported. One representative, however, while not opposing the introduction of a licensing system, said that such a system would be of doubtful effectiveness in controlling illegal trade.

  59. Many representatives expressed support for the view that the licensing system should cover only substances in Annexes A and B, while others believed that it should extend to those in Annexes C and E. One representative said that it was the clear intention of decision VII/9 that it should apply to all ODSs. Another representative suggested that the licensing system might apply initially to substances in Annexes A and B, with the possibility of an extension to other substances at a later stage.

  60. Reservations were expressed by several representatives about the proposal that trade in controlled substances should be banned with Parties that had not established a licensing system within three months of becoming a Party to the proposed amendment. While some representatives expressed support for the proposal, they too said that its detailed implications needed further study.

  61. Several representatives expressed support for the proposal that a Party issuing an export licence should notify the country of destination; some of them, however, cautioned that the procedure should not be allowed to become an additional administrative burden. Other representatives said that notification or cross-checking would definitely be too much of a burden and advised that the proposal be deleted. One representative expressed the view that notification was not even a practical proposition, and that the idea should be abandoned.

  62. A number of representatives explained that they had already established a licensing system in their countries, and some gave brief descriptions of some of the practical difficulties that could be encountered in operating it.

  63. A number of representatives, from both Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries, drew attention to the need for financial assistance, as well as capacity-building, from the Multilateral Fund to Article 5 countries for the establishment of their national licensing systems. Several representatives stressed that each national system would need to be designed in line with the country's specific characteristics and capabilities, and that not all of the systems could necessarily be set up within the same time-frame.

  64. It was agreed that the representative of Australia would convene an open-ended subgroup with all interested delegations in an attempt to resolve outstanding areas of disagreement.

  65. The subgroup on licensing subsequently submitted an amended draft decision on the subject to the Working Group for its consideration. The Working Group, decided to forward the amended draft (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/4) to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties with the understanding that its acceptance remained tied to the resolution of the related amendment issue.

    Export of used, reclaimed and recycled ozone-depleting substances

  66. Noting the broad consensus that had emerged at its fifteenth meeting on the proposal of Australia on the export of used, reclaimed and recycled ozone-depleting substances, contained in the consolidated text of proposed adjustments and amendments (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/INF.1), the Working Group decided to forward it without change for the consideration of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.

    Control of exports of products containing ozone-depleting Substances

  67. Introducing draft decision IX/5, the representative of Australia, as Facilitator of the Licensing Subgroup that had met during the fifteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, said that, at that meeting, there had been broad agreement on the general principles involved but insufficient time to reach agreement on the precise wording.

  68. A number of representatives expressed support for the draft decision as it stood, one pointing out that the language of paragraphs 1 and 3 was almost identical to that of decision VII/32. Others, however, had reservations concerning the inclusion of a provision on labelling, which could become a barrier to trade, and on the use of the term "used products", which seemed too broad in scope and needed to be better defined, possibly by preparing a list of the products intended to be covered by the draft decision. Another representative questioned whether there would be sufficient time for Parties to report to the next Meeting of the Parties, as recommended in paragraph 3 of the draft.

  69. The Working Group decided that the draft decision could be further considered by the subgroup on licensing being facilitated by the representative of Australia.

  70. The subgroup on licensing subsequently submitted an amended draft decision on the subject to the Working Group for its consideration. The Working Group, decided to forward the amended draft (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/5) to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration.

    Ratification of the Vienna Convention, Montreal Protocol and London and Copenhagen Amendments

  71. The representative of Uruguay announced that his country had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment on 3 July 1997.

  72. The Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/6, on ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments, without change, for the consideration of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/6).

    Report of the President of the Implementation Committee

  73. At the invitation of the Co-Chair, the President of the Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol, Mr.áDenis Langlois (Canada), presented the Implementation Committee's report (UNEP/Ozl.Pro/ImpCom/19/3). Since the previous meeting of the Conference of the Parties the Committee had held its seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth meetings, and he expressed his appreciation all concerned for their contribution to the Committee's work.

  74. The Committee had considered the compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia and Lithuania at its seventeenth and eighteenth meetings, on the basis of which it was recommending draft decisions IX/24 and IX/25 for adoption by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties. The Committee's report also provided information received at its nineteenth meeting from the Russian Federation on its progress towards compliance with the Montreal Protocol, as requested by the eighteenth meeting of the Implementation Committee, on the basis of which the Committee had formulated draft decision IX/26 for submission to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties, and a report by the Czech Republic on its non-compliance with the freeze in consumption of methyl bromide in 1995, on which draft decision IX/26 bis was submitted. The Committee had also considered a request by Brunei Darussalam for reclassification as a party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and had agreed to recommend this reclassification to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in draft decision IX/26 ter.

  75. He expressed appreciation to those Parties which had provided comments on the draft data-reporting formats, on the basis of which the formats had been revised for consideration by the Committee at its nineteenth meeting. At that meeting, the Committee had considered and enhanced the draft formats further and the revised forms were contained in annex 1 to the Committee's report in. The Committee recommended in draft decision IX/23 that the Ninth Meeting of the Parties should approve the revised data forms. However, he added that it was the view of the Implementation Committee that Data Form 2, on exports, should be applicable only to Annex A and Annex B substances. If that were agreed, the first footnote on that data form should be deleted.

  76. The action taken by the Working Group on the recommendations of the Implementation Committee is reflected in paragraphs 0-0 and 0-0 below.

    Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 7 and 9 of the Montreal Protocol

  77. Draft decision IX/7 was taken up together with the other recommendations of the Implementation Committee.

  78. One representative proposed an amendment to draft decision IX/7 to bring it into line with decision VIII/2, on the same subject.

  79. The Open-ended Working Group decided to forward the draft decision, as amended, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/7).

    Membership of the Implementation Committee and of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund

  80. The Working Group decided to forward draft decisions IX/8, on membership of the Implementation Committee, and IX/9, on membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the consideration of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decisions IX/8 and 9).

    Measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer

  81. Opening the discussion on draft decision IX/10, on measures taken to improve the Financial Mechanism and technology transfer, Mr. David Turner (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, said that a full report on actions taken by the Committee to improve the functioning of the Financial Mechanism had been submitted to the Open-ended Working Group at its fifteenth meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/15/4). With regard to progress on technology transfer, he said that the Informal Group established in accordance with decision VIII/7 had held one meeting, in Nairobi on 26 May 1997.

  82. One representative, supported by one other, introduced a number of amendments to the draft decision, by which, inter alia, the Executive Committee would report annually, rather than "as necessary", to the Meeting of the Parties on action taken to improve the functioning of the Financial Mechanism, the Informal Group on Technology Transfer would be requested to continue its work in accordance with decision VIII/7, and the matter would be reviewed at the Tenth Meeting of the Parties. Another representative said that the draft decision was rather general and expressed the hope that the Executive Committee would proceed expeditiously with action to support the production sector in Article 5 countries.

  83. Another representative, however, expressed support for the draft decision as it stood. It had been his understanding that the Informal Group had been established as an ad hoc body that would hold one meeting and then report back to the Executive Committee. He also noted that the Executive Committee already reported annually on its work to the Parties and it was therefore not necessary to produce a separate report on actions taken to improve the Financial Mechanism. In response, one representative stated that the Informal Group should remain in existence until the impediments to technology transfer had been removed, and that the focus of actions to improve the Financial Mechanism would be lost if the report thereon was subsumed into the annual report of the Executive Committee to the Meeting of the Parties.

  84. The Secretariat reported that the Informal Group would meet before the next meeting of the Executive Committee. The responses it had requested from Governments would be analysed and a report forwarded to the Executive Committee.

  85. Further consideration of the draft decision was deferred pending consultations among interested delegations.

  86. One representative proposed that the three paragraphs should be added to draft decision IX/10 and introduced an additional draft decision on the production sector. Another representative suggested that the Informal Group should stay in existence until a resolution by the Executive Committee and then by the Meeting of the Parties.

  87. The Co-Chair requested the interested representatives to work together on finalizing the text.

  88. Following further discussion and informal consultation, the Working Group decided to forward the draft decision, as amended, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1/Add.1, draft decision IX/10). The Working Group also decided to forward a draft decision on the production sector, without amendment, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decisionáIX/10ábis).

    Terms of reference of the Executive Committee

  89. Following a statement by the Chairman of the Executive Committee, draft decision IX/11, on terms of reference of the Executive Committee, was forwarded without change to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/11).

    Essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances

  90. In the discussion on draft decision IX/12, on essential-use exemption for laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances, one representative proposed that a paragraph should be added clarifying that the exemption would continue to exclude the manufacture of products containing, or made with but not containing, ozone-depleting substances. The same representative recalled that, in decision VI/9, the exemption was conditional on, inter alia, the submission of annual reports by the Parties concerned for each controlled substance. To his knowledge, no such reports had yet been received, which meant that a very important condition had not been fulfilled. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft decision should therefore be placed in square brackets. In response, another representative said that the reports were not due until the end of September 1997 and, given the amount of data submitted, he believed that the necessary information would be made available to the Secretariat by that time.

  91. Another representative suggested, with reference to the annual reporting requirement called for in paragraph 2 of the draft decision, that the data reported should include information on quantities used, the purposes for which laboratories were used, and the processes of looking for and finding alternatives.

  92. The Working Group decided to refer the draft decision to the subgroup on licensing being facilitated by the representative of Australia for further consideration.

  93. The subgroup on licensing subsequently submitted an amended draft decision on the subject to the Working Group for its consideration. The Working Group, decided to forward the amended draft (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/12) to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration.

    Essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances for 1998 and 1999

  94. Following a suggestion by one representative that before draft decision IX/13, on essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 Parties for controlled substances for 1998 and 1999, was discussed, participants should check the figures in the annex to the draft decision regarding their own nominations for essential-use exemptions, the draft decision was forwarded to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/13 and annex I).

  95. The representative of the United States reiterated the statement made by his delegation at the fifteenth meeting of the Working Group that his Government had withdrawn its request for a 1998 essential-use nomination for sterile aerosol talc on the understanding that the 3 tonnes exemption granted as an emergency use could be used during 1997 and 1998.

    Metered-dose inhalers

  96. The Co-Chair recalled that at the fifteenth meeting of the Working Group, the United States of America and India had each put forward draft decisions on the subject of metered-dose inhalers, which were now presented as option 1 and option 2, respectively under draft decision IX/14.

  97. Some representatives expressed support for option 1, one suggesting that initial transition strategies of those countries requesting essential-use exemptions should be submitted by January 1998 and those of other countries by January 1999. Other representatives emphasized that any transition strategy should give paramount importance to protecting patients' health and observed that, as pharmaceutical companies were generally owned by developed countries, it was for Article 2 countries to encourage those companies to produce the appropriate alternatives.

  98. One representative pointed out that the previous meeting had only been considering an interim report of TEAP on decision VIII/12, and it was therefore not appropriate to formulate an action-oriented decision at the present time but merely a decision to note the TEAP report, as suggested in option 2. He further stated that the TEAP report was incomplete, in that many of the issues referred to in paragraph 5 of decision VIII/12, which were of great relevance to Article 5 countries, still had to be examined. Those points of concern had already been recorded in paragraphá127 of the report of the fifteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/15/5), to which he again drew attention as they remained valid at the present time. Another representative said that it was important to develop a transition policy to assist Article 5 countries to move to alternatives. Some representatives said that the planning process for their national transition strategy was in place.

  99. The draft decision was then referred to the informal subgroup on licensing for further consideration.

  100. The subgroup on licensing subsequently submitted an amended draft decision on the subject to the Working Group for its consideration. The Working Group, decided to forward the amended draft (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/14) to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration.

    Transfer of essential-use authorizations for CFCs for MDIs

  101. The Working Group decided to refer draft decision IX/15, on transfer of essential use authorizations for CFCs for MDIs, to the subgroup being facilitated by the representative of Australia for its consideration.

  102. The subgroup on licensing subsequently submitted an amended draft decision on the subject to the Working Group for its consideration. The Working Group, decided to forward the amended draft, as further amended to remove the remaining square brackets to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/15.

    Decommissioning of non-essential halon systems in non-Article 5 Parties

  103. Draft decision IX/16, on the early decommissioning in non-Article 5 Parties of all non-essential halon systems, was introduced by the representative of Australia, who proposed two changes to the draft - namely, deletion from paragraph 1 of the reference to "requiring" early decommissioning, as well as of the reference to Parties "wishing to implement on a voluntary basis decision VII/12". She also offered, if the Group considered it necessary, to meet with concerned representatives to develop additional text covering considerations that should be taken into account by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP).

  104. A representative of a non-governmental organization concerned with fire-fighting said that halons were no longer needed in that field. Indeed, several alternatives to halons existed for most applications, and he welcomed the efforts being made to collect, decommission and finally destroy them.

  105. One representative said his delegation had difficulty with the proposed deletions, in view of the possible expense involved and the questionable wisdom of forcing countries to decommission plants and destroy halons which they might later require for critical uses, but said that he would not pursue his objection to the proposed deletions.

  106. Another representative suggested expanding paragraph 1 slightly, to ensure that the needs of Article 5 Parties for halons was recognized. Still another representative suggested that the possibility of redeploying halon stocks should also be recognized.

  107. It was pointed out by one representative that the Eighth Meeting of the Parties had taken decision VIII/17, on availability of halons for critical uses. That fact should be recognized in any further decision on the subject, and he suggested the inclusion of an additional preambulary clause.

  108. The Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/16, as amended, for the consideration of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/16).

    Customs codes

  109. Introducing draft decision IX/17 on the subject of customs codes, the representative of Poland said that it had been drawn up by his delegation after consultations with a number of representatives at the fifteenth meeting of the Working Group. The proposal set out measures aimed at facilitating cooperation between customs authorities and the authorities in charge of ODS control, and at ensuring compliance with licensing requirements. He announced a number of changes to the proposed draft, including the inclusion of language recognizing the contribution of the Stockholm Environmental Institute to the preparation of the Guidebook mentioned in paragraph 1.

  110. Several representatives spoke in favour of the draft decision. Corrections were made to the list of HCFCs appearing in paragraph 3 (a), with one representative suggesting that the secretariat check the list and expand it to include all HCFCs produced and exported. Another representative said that the list was deliberately limited to the most commonly used HCFCs and reflected the fact that the decision of the World Customs Organization (WCO) referred to in that paragraph had been taken precisely because of the length of the exhaustive list of HCFCs appearing in the Montreal Protocol. WCO was now being asked to limit itself to the most commonly used HCFCs; if any important ones had been omitted, they could be added.

  111. The Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/17, as amended, for the consideration of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/17).

    Continuing availability of CFCs

  112. Introducing draft decision IX/18, on continuing availability of CFCs, the representative of the European Community explained that its main aim was to curb the illegal market for virgin CFCs in Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Articleá5. He suggested that, to clarify further the intentions of the draft decision, the exception given in its paragraph 4 should be expanded to include exception of the placement on the market and sale of virgin CFCs to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. He further explained that the proposal did not cover CFCs stockpiled for equipment-servicing purposes.

  113. One representative questioned the statement in paragraph 3 that economically feasible alternatives to new CFCS were available, suggesting that that was not true in many developing countries. Another representative found the principle and spirit of the draft decision acceptable, but suggested that, for clarity, its title be amended to read: "Continuing availability of CFCs in non-Article 5 countries".

  114. Two representatives expressed opposition to the draft decision. One feared that, while elimination of illegal imports was a first priority, the decision might retroactively turn legal manufacturing operations into illegal activities. The other found it illogical to impose a ban while stockpiles were available which could legitimately be placed on the markets of developing countries to meet their domestic needs. A representative of a non-governmental organization commented that there was considerable evidence that in illegal trade virgin CFCs were often disguised as recovered or recycled products.

  115. On the question of whether the draft decision should rather take the form of an adjustment or an amendment to the Protocol, the representative of the European Community explained that he did not consider that necessary as it did not constitute a change in the obligations assumed by the Parties.

  116. Following further discussion and informal consultations, the Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/18, as amended, for the consideration of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1/Add.1, draft decision IX/18).

    Process agents

  117. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision IX/19, on process agents. One representative, supported by another, said that neither option in the draft decision as it now stood reflected the intention of the Working Group at its fifteenth meeting. At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, it had been decided that process agents would not be treated in the same or similar way as feedstocks after 1997.

  118. Further action on draft decision IX/19 was deferred pending informal consultations.

  119. At the final session of the meeting, the Working Group, noting that no agreement had yet been reached on the issue, decided that the representatives concerned would continue their consultations and report back directly to the Meeting of the Parties.

    Control of new substances with ozone-depleting potential

  120. Introducing draft decision IX/20, on control of new substances with ozone-depleting potential, the representative of the European Community said that the draft was intended to establish a structure and procedure by which the issue could be addressed.

  121. One representative said that the draft raised the question of defining compounds with ozone-depleting potential. Another expressed the view that the proposed ODP limit value of 0.005 was much too low, and would entail the undertaking of much unnecessary work. He proposed instead a limit of 0.01. A Co-Chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel said that it would be wise to have a procedure in place for dealing with new substances whose ozone-depleting potential and whose likely level of production were both significant.

  122. The Working Group agreed that the representative of the European Community should consult with interested representatives with a view to submitting a revised text to the Working Group.

  123. Introducing a revised draft decision IX/20, the representative of the European Community said that although progress had been made on the item, the Scientific Assessment Panel required further time. An exchange of differing views ensued whether the process of discouragement referred to in the draft decision should or should not be based on reports from the TEAP.

  124. The representative of the European Community subsequently introduced an amendment which he stated had made the draft decision acceptable to the concerned Parties. The Working Group decided to forward the draft decision, as amended, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/20).

    Application of Moldova for developing country status under the Montreal Protocol

  125. During the discussion of decision IX/21, on application of Moldova for developing country status under the Montreal Protocol, one representative suggested adding language at the end of the draft in order to bring it in line with decision VIII/29 of the Eighth Meeting of the Parties, on a similar application from Georgia. Another representative, while not objecting to the amendment, said that the inclusion of the proposed language in draft decisionáIX/21 on the reclassification of Moldova should not be taken as an indication that a precondition for reclassification had been, or would be, established.

  126. The Working Group agreed to forward draft decision IX/21, as amended, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/21).

    Application of South Africa for developing country status under the Montreal Protocol

  127. The representative of South Africa said that his country was classified as a developing country by the United Nations Development Programme and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and in all other international environmental conventions and protocols to which it was a Party and in which the distinction was made. He also stated that South Africa's annual consumption of controlled substances in Annex A of the Montreal Protocol had been less than 0.3 kg per capita at the time of its accession to the Protocol in January 1990, but that it had appeared higher because the Government at that time had excluded large numbers of South Africans from the population-count figures, classifying them as inhabitants of so-called "independent homelands". He stated that his country would not seek funds from the Montreal Protocol for phase-out projects already started, nor would it go back on the progress towards phase-out which it had already made while classified as a developed country.

  128. South Africa subsequently submitted a draft decision IX/22 on the subject for the consideration of the Working Group.

  129. One representative, speaking on behalf of a regional economic integration organization and its Member States, said that the Community took note of draft decision IX/22 concerning the reclassification of South Africa as an Article 5 country, and that it could accept it. It was understood that South Africa was classified by the OECD and UNDP as a developing country. However, it was also noted that the level of agreement and firm commitment South Africa had made as an Article 2 country until the present time must not be lost as a result of such reclassification in the continuing challenges facing the current and future meetings of the Parties to the Protocol.

  130. The Community also noted that the change of South Africa's status under this Protocol should not be seen as a precedent for its status under other international forum, and expected that Article 5 countries would, as soon as their position enabled them to do so, reclassify to Article 2, which was the core of the obligations of all Parties to the Protocol.

  131. One representative drew attention to one change still to be made in the text of draft decision IX/22, and the Co-Chair requested the representative of South Africa to clarify the point with the Secretariat and present the final text to plenary.

  132. Following further discussion and informal consultations, the Working Group decided to forward the draft decision, as amended, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/22), noting that the text now made clear that South Africa would not request financial assistance to fulfil commitments already undertaken during its status as a developed country Party prior to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties.

    Revised formats for reporting data under Article 7 of the Protocol

  133. The Working Group considered a revised draft decision IX/23 as recommended by the Implementation Committee, as well as the draft reporting forms appearing in annex I to the Committee's report (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/19/3).

  134. One representative suggested adding to the draft decision an indication that, once adopted, the reporting forms would satisfy the reporting requirements specified in a number of other earlier decisions. Another representative emphasized that any such addition should make it clear that the reporting forms in question did not satisfy all the reporting requirements imposed by earlier decisions.

  135. Another representative drew attention to a relationship between draft decision IX/23 and draft decision IX/17, on customs codes, and suggested that an appropriate cross-reference should be inserted in draft decision IX/23.

  136. Two representatives proposed changes to the column headings in data form 3 (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/19/3, annex I, page 14).

  137. Subject to the approval of the draft additional text to be developed by one representative in cooperation with the Secretariat, the Working Group decided to forward to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration draft decision IX/23, as amended, together with the data-reporting forms, also as amended and on the understanding that the Secretariat would edit the forms and introduction for language and consistency, as appropriate (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/23 and annex II).

    Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia

  138. On the recommendation of the Implementation Committee, the Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/24, on compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Latvia, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/24).

    Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lithuania

  139. On the recommendation of the Implementation Committee, the Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/25, on compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lithuania, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/25).

    Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation

  140. On the recommendation of the Implementation Committee, the Working Group decided to forward a revised version of draft decision IX/26, on compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Russian Federation, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/26).

    Non-compliance by the Czech Republic with the freeze in consumption of methyl bromide in 1995

  141. On the recommendation of the Implementation Committee, the Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/26 bis, on non-compliance by the Czech Republic with the freeze in consumption of methyl bromide in 1995, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/26 bis).

    Request by Brunei Darussalam for reclassification as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5

  142. On the recommendation of the Implementation Committee, the Working Group decided to forward version of draft decision IX/26 ter, on the request by Brunei Darussalam for reclassification as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/26 ter).

    Compliance with the Montreal Protocol

  143. A revised draft decision IX/27 was submitted to the Working Group by the President of the Implementation Committee.

  144. In response to a question by one representative, the Secretariat recalled decision IV/14 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and clarified that cases of transshipment of controlled substances through a third country could be clearly distinguished from cases of import and subsequent re-export. In cases of transshipment of controlled substances through a third country (as opposed to import and subsequent re-export), the country of origin of the controlled substances shall be regarded as the exporter and the country of final destination shall be regarded as the importer. In such cases, the responsibility for reporting data lay with the country of origin as the exporter and the country of final destination as the importer. Cases of import and re-export should be treated as two separate transactions; the country of origin would report shipment to the country of intermediate destination, which would subsequently report the import from the country of origin and the export to the country of final destination, while the country of final destination would report the import.

  145. The Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/27 to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/27).

    Co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

  146. The Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/28 to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/28).

    Financial matters: financial report and budgets

  147. The Co-Chair introduced draft decision IX/29, on financial report and budgets, calling the attention of the Working Group to documents UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/4 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/5.

  148. One representative, welcoming the fact that the Ozone Secretariat had had sufficient funds during the year to finance the participation of all Article 5 representatives in all Assessment Panels, suggested that a paragraph should be added to incorporate the Secretariat assurance. A representative of the Secretariat replied that the adequacy of a given amount was dependent on the number of Assessment Panel meetings in a year. In 1997, the Secretariat had not had to decline any requests for financial assistance, but in a year in which there were more meetings, more money would be required.

  149. The representative of China pointed out that his country had paid its contribution within the past week, a fact which was not reflected in the financial report.

  150. The Working Group decided to set up an informal group, composed of the representatives of Canada, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and facilitated by the representative of Argentina, to consider the draft decision on financial matters.

  151. Subsequently, the facilitator of the informal group reported on the successful conclusion of its work, including agreement on an amended decisionáIX/29.

  152. The Working Group agreed to forward the draft decision to Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration, on the understanding that additional text regarding the funding of the participation of experts from Article 5 countries in meetings of the Assessment Panels and the Technical Options Committees would be added in square brackets.

  153. The Working Group subsequently considered two additional paragraphs for insertion in draft decision IX/29.

  154. One representative proposed the addition of an explanatory paragraph to be inserted before the two proposed paragraphs, making reference to the terms of reference of the Assessment Panels adopted by the Eighth Meeting of the Parties. The proposer of the two additional paragraphs suggested that the addition of the words "and their subsidiary bodies" in the proposed explanatory paragraph.

  155. The Working Group decided to forward draft decision IX/29 with the additions proposed, for the consideration of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/29 and annexes III and IV).

    Arrears of contributions to the Multilateral Fund by the Parties not operating under Article 5 which had not ratified the London Amendment

  156. Introducing draft decision IX/30, arrears of contributions to the Multilateral Fund by Parties not operating under Article 5 which had not ratified the London Amendment, the representative of India said that he hoped that the decision would close a long-running story, but warned that the decision might "open the floodgates" of Parties seeking refunds.

  157. The representative of Latvia pointed out an error in annex II to the draft decision, in that arrears of US$á98,162 were shown for 1994, a year in which Latvia had not yet ratified the Montreal Protocol. That amount should be transferred to 1995.

  158. An amended draft decision IX/30 was subsequently circulated by the representative of India for the consideration of the Working Group.

  159. The Working Group decided to forward the amended draft decision IX/30 for the consideration of the Ninth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/30 and annex V).

    Date and venue of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties.

  160. The Working Group agreed to recommend to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties draft decision IX/31 by which the Ninth Meeting would reaffirm its decision VIII/38 that the Tenth Meeting would be held in Egypt in 1998 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/31).

  161. The representative of Egypt advised that the meeting would be held in Cairo and that the suggested dates were 17 to 27 November 1998.

    Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

  162. In introducing draft decision IX/32, on Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, the Secretariat drew the attention of the Working Group to the corresponding background document (UNEP/OzL./Pro.9/11).

  163. The Co-Chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel stated that the delay in completing the Special Report arose as a result of difficulties encountered by the relevant technical panel in developing reasonable scenarios for aviation activities well into the next century. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and International Civil Aviation Organization had already agreed with the Panel's request, in the belief that the delay would lead to a better report.

  164. The Working Group agreed to forward draft decision IX/32 to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/32).

    Review of the non-compliance procedure

  165. Introducing the item, the representative of Canada recalled that during the Fifteenth Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group, Canada had led a small group set up to study questions relating to the non-compliance procedure, and had undertaken to continue working on the issue after the meeting. It remained convinced of the importance of the issue, but did not underestimate the complexity of the task, recognizing that it would not be possible to conclude the work in the course of the present year. In consequence, the Canadian delegation had prepared a draft decision whose purpose was to ensure that the work on the important issue would continue. It provided for an Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group to be set up with the mandate of determining the need and modalities for the further elaboration and the strengthening of the non-compliance procedure. The draft decision contained a timetable for the Group's work and suggested some items which the work should cover.

  166. Following subsequent discussion the representative of Canada introduced a revised version of the draft decision on review of the non-compliance procedure and drew attention to the new provisions on the composition of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts.

  167. One representative suggested that the addition of a paragraph which would provide that the review of the indicative list of measures for non-compliance was specifically excluded from the mandate of the Ad Hoc Working Group. He also proposed that there should be two Co-Chairs, one each from the Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries. The Co-Chair requested the representative to consult with the representative of Canada on those two points with a view to finalizing the text.

  168. Following further discussion and amendment, the Working Group decided to forward the draft decision, as amended, to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/33).

    Reimbursement of contributions from Cyprus to the Multilateral Fund

  169. In introducing this item, the Secretariat drew the Working Group's attention to document UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/10 and Corr.1, stating that as a result of its reclassification as a Party operating under Article 5, the Government of Cyprus had requested reimbursement of the amount Cyprus had contributed to the Multilateral Fund for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. The Secretariat noted that as also mentioned in the document, a similar situation pertained for Malta. While the number of Parties with potentially similar situations was limited, such requests could arise again in the future.

  170. Following a request by one representative for additional time to study the matter, the Working Group postponed action on this issue.

  171. Subsequently, the representative of an economic integration organization said that organization and its member States would not be able to agree to a refund for Cyprus.

  172. The Working Group decided to recommend to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties that the amount already paid by Cyprus to the Multilateral Fund should not be refunded (UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/6/Rev.1, draft decision IX/34).

    IV. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

  173. The present report was adopted by the Open-ended Working Group at the sixth session of the meeting, on Friday, 12 September 1997, on the basis of the draft report contained in document (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/16/L.1 and Add.1).

  174. At the final session of the meeting, on Monday, 15 September 1997, the Group decided to entrust the finalization of its report, including actions taken at the final two sessions of the meeting, on the understanding that concerned delegations could offer corrections to report regarding references to their own statements in those two sessions.

    V. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING

  175. The Co-Chair declared the sixteenth meeting of the Working Group closed at 8.30áp.m. on Monday, 15 September 1997.
    [ Back ]

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