Report of the 6th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
10 October 1994
Nairobi, 6-7 October 1994
REPORT OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER
1. The Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was held at the headquarters of the United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, on 6 and 7 October 1994.
2. The Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was opened at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 6 October 1994, by Mr. Bashir A. Khodabux, Vice-President of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
3. Welcoming all the delegates to the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme and Secretary-General to the Meeting, recalled that the last time the Parties had met in Nairobi had been for the Third Meeting of the Parties, in June 1991; since then, there had been a continuous increase in the number of Parties, so that, currently, 139 Parties had ratified the Montreal Protocol, 93 Parties the London Amendment and 34 Parties the Copenhagen Amendment, which had entered into force on 14 June 1994.
4. Referring to the Copenhagen Amendment, the Executive Director stressed the importance of that instrument, through which, by the end of 1993, developed countries had completely ceased production and consumption of halons and in prospect, by the end of 1995, was the elimination of the production and consumption of CFCs by all Parties not operating under Article 5 of the Protocol. The reduction in the rate of build-up in the atmosphere of man-made substances that depleted the ozone layer could be directly attributed to the measures taken by the Parties under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments. The Executive Director thanked the Co-Chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel and the experts from 29 countries who had assisted in the preparation of a recently-released new scientific assessment of the state of understanding of ozone depletion. Thanks were also due to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Technical Options Committees for their comprehensive and constructive recommendations, which, in turn, had enabled the Open-ended Working Group to recommend to the Parties for approval only those nominations for essential uses of controlled substances that were endorsed by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. She strongly recommended to the meeting that only such essential uses, based on the technical and economic feasibility of using substitutes, be approved.
5. The Executive Director congratulated all those Parties that had fulfilled their data-reporting requirements in time and made an earnest appeal to those that had not yet reported their data to do so as soon as possible. She also drew the attention of the Meeting to the alarming trend in contributions still outstanding to the Multilateral Fund and the Trust Funds for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol and urged all the Parties to pay their entire outstanding contributions as soon as possible, in order to avoid the disruption of the many activities designed to implement decisions approved by the Parties and those that might be approved at the present meeting.
6. Listing some of the main recommendations before the Meeting, made by the Open-ended Working Group and the Preparatory Meeting, the Executive Director expressed the hope that all the recommendations would be approved by the Meeting. Regarding the future, she cited the need for renewed and innovative efforts at information sharing, capacity-building and technology transfer to developing countries, the need to move away from HCFCs wherever possible and the need for decisive action on HCFCs and methyl bromide. Substantial successes had been registered, but the urgency and global cooperation shown in the past needed to be manifested again, to perhaps an even greater degree. She was confident that the phasing-out of ozone-depleting substances would be even more successful in the future.
7. Mr. Bashir A. Khodabux, Vice-President of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties, welcomed the participants and thanked Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell and the staff of the United Nations Environment Programme for having made the arrangements for the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. On behalf of the outgoing Bureau, he also thanked the Secretariat for its work throughout the year and for its efforts in preparing for the present Meeting which, he was sure, would be successful.
8. Noting the steady increase in the number of countries ratifying the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments, he said that, in the past year, 14 more countries had ratified the Protocol, bringing the total to 139 countries. Over 50 per cent of those were developing countries and the vision of a Multilateral Fund to provide resources to developing countries was now an established reality, but maintaining it was a continuing challenge, not least in keeping contributions coming in, if the effort to protect the ozone layer was to be shared between developing and developed countries. The number of participants from developing countries in the Technical Options Committees and Assessment Panels had grown, as a result of the recognition that all nations had much at stake in the reports of those committees and panels.
9. He referred to the recommendations of the Open-ended Working Group before the present meeting, in particular to the important recommendation regarding the limited number of essential uses, for which there were no adequate substitutes or available stock of the controlled substances. He believed the recommendation was well-considered from a technical point of view and important for the protection of the ozone layer.
10. The Meeting was attended by representatives of the following Parties to the Montreal Protocol: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkemenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
11. Representatives of the following States not party to the Protocol also attended: Armenia, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Holy See, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Morocco.
12. Representatives of the following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies also attended: General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), World Bank.
13. The following intergovernmental organizations were also represented: Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD), Organization of African Unity (OAU), Programme for the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA).
14. The following bodies and agencies were also represented by observers: African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Agricultural Research Consulting, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration European Association (AREA), Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, Arab Towns Organization, Association Methyl Bromide Industry of Japan (AMBIJ), Centre for Science and Environment, Climate Network Africa, Development Alternatives Network, Environmental Defense Fund, Environment Liaison Centre International, European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), Friends of the Earth, G.F.L., General Electrical Appliances, Green Africa Society International, Greenpeace, Gujarat Flurochemical Limited, Halozone, Hankook Shinwha Co. Ltd., Industrial Chemistry Research Institute (ICRI), Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), International Mining Consultants Ltd. (IMCL), International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC), Kenya Energy and Environmental Organization (KENGO), Japan Association for Hygiene of Chlorinated Solvents (JAHCS), Japan Electrical Manufacturers Association (JEMA), Japan Flow Gas Association (JFGA), Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer Protection (JICOP), Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry Association (JRAIA), Mazingira Institute, Methyl Bromide Global Coalition (MBGC), Pesticide Action Network, Promosol, Safe Alliance, Safety Hi-Tech, Korea Special Chemical Ind. Association, Wuppertal Institute.
15. In accordance with rule 21, paragraph 1, of the rules of procedure, the following officers were elected, by acclamation, at the opening of the Meeting:
Mr. Manuel Romay, Minister of Housing and Environment, Uruguay (Latin American and the Caribbean Group)
Mr. Peter Chin, Deputy Minister of Science and Technology, Malaysia (Asia and Pacific Group)
Mr. Alan Davis, United Kingdom (Western European and Others Group)
Ms. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, South Africa (African Group)
Mr. Janusz Kozakiewicz, Poland (Eastern European Group)
16. One representative proposed the addition to the provisional agenda (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/1) of a new sub-item 3 c (v) (Situation of Parties with economies in transition). The amendment was adopted by the Meeting.
17. The following agenda, as contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/1, was adopted as amended:
18. The Bureau of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties approved the credentials of the representatives of 50 Parties to the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol. The Bureau also approved provisionally the representation of 21 Parties on the understanding that they would send the credentials to the Secretariat in due course.
19. Dr. P.J. Aucamp, Co-Chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel, reported that the growth in CFCs had slowed down, as a result of the measures taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. He also stated, however, that ozone depletion was on the increase and would continue to increase for the next few years. Only in the latter part of the next century would levels get back to "pre-ozone-hole" levels. It had been indicated to the Parties that options to strengthen the Protocol further were limited and would probably be expensive and that issue still had to be explored further by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. At the end of September 1994, the ozone hole was already bigger than 21 million square km with ozone levels below 100 Dobson units, more or less equal to 70 per cent depletion, and it was expected to deteriorate further.
20. Dr. Jan C. Van der Leun, Co-Chair of the Panel on Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion, reported on the state of science with respect to effects. The 1994 Assessment on Effects would deal with the increase in ultraviolet radiation and its consequences for human and animal health, terrestrial plants, aquatic ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, air quality and materials. The prediction by the Scientific Assessment Panel, implying that the ozone layer would be damaged for at least 50 years, had been based on fairly optimistic assumptions: that there would be full and world-wide compliance with the Copenhagen Amendment, and that there would be no new threats to the ozone layer in that period. Even on the basis of that scenario, there would be significant effects. And those effects would be worse if the assumptions were not fully satisfied. The environmental effects still formed a very good reason to continue with efforts to protect the ozone layer.
21. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Kuijpers, Co-Chairs of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, introduced the Panel's report. The Technology and Economics Assessment Panel and its seven Technical Options Committees had over 300 members from 38 countries. Twenty-two developed country parties had nominated essential uses. The Panel and its Technical Options Committees, by consensus, had recommended only metered dose inhalers (MDIs), space shuttle, and laboratory and analytical uses. Other nominations had not been recommended because substitutes and alternatives were available or uses could be satisfied from available ODS supplies, for the years nominated. The Panel and its Technical Options Committees had been unable to recommend production of silicone, chlorinated rubber, chlorine, or terephthaloyldichloride because alternatives were available, albeit at great cost and effort. However, because emissions from those processors were not well quantified, the Panel had recommended that Parties consider their treatment as "process agents" similar to the allowed use for "feedstocks", while the Panel studied the issue. The decisions taken at the present Meeting would include tasks for Panel and its Technical Options Committees on a very challenging time schedule, and complete and accurate applications, meeting essential use criteria, would be very helpful. The March 1994 report included important technical information on recovery, recycling and containment, destruction, halon banking, and inadvertent production. Issues of HCFCs and developing country concerns had also been considered and would be updated and elaborated in the November 1994 and March 1995 reports.
22. Statements were made by representatives of 35 States, including two non-Parties, and by two non-governmental organizations.
23. A number of representatives expressed their appreciation of the excellent work of the Ozone Secretariat, the secretariats of the Multilateral Fund and UNEP, and the Assessment Panels.
24. Many representatives took a positive view of the achievements of the Montreal Protocol, particularly its capacity to evolve to keep pace with events. Some stated, however, that future progress would depend on the adequate fulfilment of the Parties' obligations. One representative commented that an increasing number of Article 5 countries had begun the work of reconverting industry and collecting data, and some of them had gone beyond what was necessary. Several cautioned, however, against the trend to permit bodies subordinate to the Meeting of the Parties, such as the Executive Committee, to restrict or otherwise modify the duties and entitlements of the Parties under the Protocol.
25. Many representatives gave an account of their national achievements in implementing the Protocol, a number of them mentioning the approval or imminent completion of their country programmes. Several representatives referred, however, to the greater difficulties encountered by the Article 5 countries, particularly with regard to the collection of data - leading to reporting problems - and the acquisition of accurate and timely information concerning alternative technologies.
26. Several representatives cautioned against complacency. There was still much work to be done. Although some of the scientific data indicated that the Protocol was having a beneficial effect, the ozone "hole" was becoming larger each year and the peak load of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere had not yet been reached. One of them gave details of the current "hole" over the Antarctic. He added, and another representative concurred, that research into alternative technologies that were environmentally clean needed to be intensified.
27. One representative said that more precautionary measures were needed. He believed that strict monitoring of trade in recycled substances should be put in place. Such steps were crucial to make durable the results achieved with the phase-out. Another representative said that the use of recycled controlled substances might involve difficult trade-offs with respect to performance, energy efficiency, toxicity, global-warming potential and costs.
28. Many representatives referred to the usefulness of cooperation in attaining the ends of the Protocol, both regional cooperation and bilateral cooperation between individual Parties operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, and Parties not so operating. One of them mentioned, in that regard, the decision of the Multilateral Fund to provide resources for regional and subregional workshops. Another representative commented that it was incumbent on the Parties not operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, to bear the brunt of the burden of the Protocol operations, since they were mainly responsible for the parlous state of the ozone layer. Several representatives pointed out that cooperation was also essential at the national level between the governmental and non-governmental sectors, with particular reference to industry.
29. A number of representatives of countries operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, expressed alarm at the attempts that were being made to impose earlier phase-out dates than those prescribed by the Protocol and its Amendments, largely through the Assessment Panels. Some representatives of countries not operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, and several representatives of countries operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, informed the Meeting that they were ahead of schedule in phasing-out or reducing the production and consumption of various controlled substances.
30. One representative reminded the Meeting that, despite numerous previous calls for verification of claims concerning ozone-benign and safe substitutes and alternatives, there had been no progress. He urged the Meeting to act on that matter. He further proposed that UNEP should be responsible for the dissemination of information on safe and ozone-benign substitutes and alternatives and work towards a legal regime for a verification mechanism, product safety and liability.
31. Several representatives pointed to the need for an adequate transfer of technology that could assure the protection of the ozone layer.
32. One of them said that there had been no palpable movement towards the provision of technology to Article 5 countries to produce CFC substitutes. Information dissemination and clearing-house functions were inadequate. That situation had to be changed, or the Protocol would be only partially implemented. Technology for the production of CFC substitutes, he continued, had to be made available at affordable rates and on acceptable terms. One representative said that his country was supporting interested partner countries to help them undertake specific CFC substitution measures, e.g. through bilateral cooperation with China, India and Indonesia in the area of home refrigeration.
33. Another representative said that his country would make a reality of the obligation to transfer technology it had entered into under the Montreal Protocol, in order to help, wherever possible, developing countries to comply with the regulatory provisions. However, such a transfer was not a one-way street from industrial to developing and threshold countries. Where necessary, technologies had to be jointly developed which were tailor-made to the problems to be tackled.
34. Yet another representative said that, because Article 5 countries naturally found it more difficult to switch to alternatives than non-Article 5 countries, it was necessary to review constantly the actual transfer of technology for alternatives. There was a need to be more innovative and to exploit indigenous technologies, which would make the switch to alternatives less financially burdensome.
35. Some representatives said that the flow of information had to be improved. One of them, the representative of Germany, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that institutions were needed to meet that challenge. The UNEP International Environmental Technology Centre represented an excellent example and Germany planned to set up a similar centre, geared particularly to the countries of Eastern Europe and to developing and threshold countries. His country believed it could provide not only the technology, but also the know-how required to operate it and the relevant funding and the legal framework required.
36. One representative invited UNEP to establish regional networks in order to facilitate more productive interaction among countries in reducing ODS.
37. The representative of South Africa said that his country was ready to share its expertise and experience in phasing out ODS with all other African States, and especially with neighbouring countries.
38. One representative said he had expected the two reviews currently being undertaken under the Protocol to deal adequately with the issue of technology transfer. However, he believed the primary purpose of those studies did not touch on identifying the quantity, rate and consequences of such transfer in relation to ODS phase-out. In the future, the need for a specific study on technological issues related to the Protocol could be considered.
39. A number of representatives welcomed the entry into force of the Copenhagen Amendment on 14 June 1994 and said that their countries were actively engaged in the ratification process. Several of them added that, without waiting for the formal ratification, their Governments had begun implementing the contents of the Amendment.
40. Several representatives referred to the importance of recognizing the special situation of countries with economies in transition. One representative said that it did not seem feasible for his country to meet the 1 January 1996 deadline for the phase-out of CFCs. Consequently a request was currently being prepared that his country be granted an extension of the deadline with respect to the production of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and halons.
41. Another representative stated that ratifying the London and Copenhagen Amendments would commit it to financial obligations that it could not meet. He noted further that countries with economies in transition had been given special status in many international treaties and he hoped that an understanding of their situation would also be appropriately reflected in the decision of the Meeting of the Parties. In view of the change in the political situation in the world since the lists of developed and developing countries had been established in 1989, he said that it was difficult to satisfy the principle of fairness without taking into consideration the actual capabilities of countries to implement their obligations under the Protocol.
42. Representatives of some States with economies in transition not party to the Protocol said that their countries had hitherto been unable to become parties to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, mainly because of the lack, for historical reasons, of the infrastructural elements needed to fulfil the obligations involved. They felt, however, that, with the installation of those elements and the completion of country studies, their countries would be able to accede to the Convention and Protocol in 1995. They emphasized, however, that, for financial reasons, that accession would be limited to the 1987 text of the Protocol and that their countries would be unable to accept the London and Copenhagen Amendments in the near future.
43. Several representatives said that particular attention should be paid to the special situation of small island developing States. In that connection, one of them pointed out that the attitude of such States to the other environmental conventions would be conditioned by their experience with the Montreal Protocol. Several others recalled the decision by the United Nations Global Conference on Small Island Developing States and urged the Executive Committee to recognize those special interests and needs, including expeditious approval of programmes and projects intended to retrofit essential equipment used in the tourism industry, the most important economic sector in small island developing States.
44. One representative emphasized the importance of augmenting the full participation of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in all organs of the Montreal Protocol. Noting the importance of maintaining strong interest in the issue at the highest levels of policy-making, he emphasized the need to fund fully the attendance of Ministers at Meetings of the Parties.
45. One representative, speaking on behalf of several Parties in the Caribbean region, called on the Secretariat to develop a regional approach to reducing the use of ozone-depleting substances in those countries.
46. One representative said he wished to emphasize the importance of cooling facilities and air-conditioning mechanisms in many Article 5 countries for climatic reasons. Sufficient attention must be paid to that industry, lest major unemployment should result and social conditions be jeopardized. Another representative said that the Technical Options Committee reports on refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pumps would be of great assistance in minimizing consumption in the cooling sector.
47. Several representatives said that greater use should be made of indigenous capacity in implementing projects in developing countries. One representative stressed the need for awareness-building among the public and industry in order to promote changes of policy regarding the use of ODS. One representative said that, while local management in a country could not, of itself, solve the global problem of ozone depletion, it could act as a catalyst by showing what could be done.
48. Many representatives expressed concern about the poor state of the Multilateral Fund and a number said that the Fund had to be protected and strengthened, noting that the response of developing countries would be contingent on a continuous flow of financial resources. The contributions should be adequate and predictable. The outstanding contributions, said some representatives, had to be paid on time. One representative believed that promissory notes to the Fund were acceptable, as the method had stood the test of time.
49. The representative of the Group of 77 said that the country programmes of those Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 showed that they had adopted ambitious objectives to eliminate the production and consumption of ODS and meet their obligations under the Protocol. Those countries had enormous needs with regard to technology transfer and funds. The present situation of the Fund required immediate action on the part of donors to pay their contributions to avoid delaying the implementation of projects in the Article 5 countries and the negative consequences that such delay would have on cooperation in the protection of the ozone layer. In the name of the Group of 77, the representative asked Parties to ensure that contributions to the Fund were paid regularly and on time and were reserved exclusively for the use of countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol, otherwise there was a danger of seeing other poles emerge which could absorb the essential part of the Fund's meagre resources. That could severely penalize the countries in the Group of 77. Present contributions, even if paid in total, could not be sufficient to meet all the requirements. Thus, it was necessary to manage available resources rationally. Access to those resources for developing countries was becoming increasingly difficult, due to the restrictive conditions adopted at different Meetings of the Parties. The developing countries had to obtain easier access to project financing and new technologies, instead of facing a multiplication of restrictive criteria that could cause jams and have the reverse effect to that intended. In addition, he said, the large number of decisions, their ambiguity and the difficulty in implementing them was a major obstacle for the developing countries in attaining the objectives of the Montreal Protocol. He hoped that the present weak state of the Fund's resources was not a sign of weakening commitment on the part of developed countries with regard to the indispensable aid the developing countries required for the protection of the ozone layer.
50. Another representative said he could sympathize with non-payment by countries facing genuine economic hardship, but not with countries which could pay, but chose not to. That representative urged the Parties to adopt concrete and effective measures to overcome the problem, such as imposition of interest on arrears; barring attendance to working groups, expert panels and the meetings of Parties; or having the unpaid arrears borne by those non-Article 5 countries that claimed non-payment did not contravene Article 10.
51. One representative said that the assurances that lack of funds was no reason for turning down projects had not been borne out by experience. The very concept of prioritization of projects, under consideration by the Executive Committee, was obviously due to a shortage of funds - otherwise it was difficult to comprehend why projects which were meritorious in themselves should be prioritized.
52. Several representatives were concerned that policy recommendations were being discussed that increasingly restricted access to financial resources. One representative, stating that restrictive criteria gave the wrong signal to industries in developing countries, said that such important policy issues should not be left to the Executive Committee, but should be appraised by the Meeting of the Parties. Another representative, noting that enthusiasm for the Multilateral Fund had cooled in some countries, called for flexibility in interpreting the rules governing project approval and said that, if confidence in the Multilateral Fund failed, there was a risk of not succeeding with the environmental conventions.
53. Yet another representative said that there was a clear intention behind the tendency of some members of the Executive Committee to interpret the Committee's terms of reference restrictively: to reduce the outflow of funds and, therefore, the inflow of their contributions. That was contrary to the spirit of the London Agreement, and Parties should strike down such practices wherever they occurred. Another representative urged the Executive Committee to reconsider its position regarding support for regional workshops on data collection and reporting.
54. One representative said that increasingly restrictive interpretations were being given to the term "incremental operating costs" and the period for which they would be made available had been reduced from meeting to meeting of the Executive Committee, which was currently seeking a period of two years, or even one year. The indicative list of qualifying costs, which had been expected to evolve from the Executive Committee's discussions, had unfortunately resulted in greater stringency and insurmountable constraints. At the implementation level, he said, that meant that the universal consensus arrived at in Meetings of the Parties was being whittled away. That tendency had to be rejected.
55. One representative urged the Parties not to forget their commitment to the world community that compliance with the Protocol would not mean any adverse economic or other impacts on developing countries. The developing countries, whose contribution to ozone depletion had been minimal, had committed themselves to the requirements of the Protocol in a spirit of partnership to address the environmental problems of the planet in their entirety. Should an instrument of environmental protection, he asked, be allowed to degenerate into one of developmental constraints.
56. Another representative said that the Executive Committee was not taking an increasingly limited view of incremental costs and, in his view, the Fund was intended to support development, but that had to be done in an appropriate and sustainable way.
57. In the calculation of incremental operating costs, said one representative, the current market prices of ODS should not be used, as they were themselves the result of Protocol-induced scenarios. The lower, pre-Protocol, prices of ODS would more correctly reflect the true financial impact of the adoption of non-ODS technologies on consumers.
58. Several representatives emphasized that, until the requisite funds were forthcoming from the Fund or some other financial mechanism, developing countries would be in a very difficult position in implementing ODS phase-out plans. One of them consequently welcomed the commissioning of the reviews undertaken by the Fund and the independent review of the Financial Mechanism. One representative reiterated his country's desire to explore with partners ways and means of converting a part of his country's external debt to finance the national environment protection programme.
59. Another representative said that, in order to help developing countries which were unable to implement control measures themselves, her country could make a continued equitable financial contribution to the Fund. Her country supported the idea that, in order to make more effective use of the Fund's resources, some affluent developing countries should not count on the Fund for aid to implement control measures. The representative further expressed appreciation for the self-control manifested by such countries.
60. One representative said he was glad that the differing opinions on the subject of reclassifying countries as not operating under Article 5 had been reconciled and that draft decision VI/5 was being submitted for adoption by the present Meeting.
61. The representative of the Republic of Korea said that, in the light of the limited resources available in the Fund and the need to use them efficiently, his country, though clearly eligible for access to the Fund, would henceforth not exercise that right for the purpose of national programmes. He hoped that that decision would help other developing countries to gain more access to the Fund and also help developed countries mobilize domestic support for contributing to the Fund.
62. One representative said it was fortunate that the process of restructuring the Global Environment Facility had been finalized and that GEF-2, with its new resources, had become a reality. He hoped that the present Meeting would succeed in stabilizing a rational relationship between the Montreal Protocol and the Facility, in such a way that developing countries would benefit more effectively from those two mechanisms for the purpose of protecting the global environment.
63. One representative said that the Parties must find new sources of financial assistance for ODS phase-out in Article 5 countries, because the Multilateral Fund was not large enough for the task.
64. Several representatives said that the use of CFCs was actually increasing in certain sectors, a situation that needed to be addressed. One of them commented, in that regard, that the retention by the non-Article 5 Parties of a limited CFC-production capacity to meet the basic needs of the Article 5 Parties seemed unnecessary, since the latter countries were perfectly capable of producing sufficient CFCs for the purpose.
65. Some representatives said that HCFCs were important transitional substances and that any action to restrict the use of HCFCs at the current stage would, despite the recent development of technologies that were ozone benign, place an undue burden on the Article 5 countries. Yet another representative added that many such countries had invested substantially in HCFC technologies. Another representative said that it was essential to phase out the use of HCFCs more rapidly than anticipated.
66. The representative of the Group of 77 said it was important to draw the Parties' attention to the fact that recovery of ODS and their transboundary movements to developing countries with the aim of recycling them constituted a practice that was not in conformity with international agreements on transboundary movements of waste, notably the Basel and Bamako conventions. Thus, it was necessary to examine the question closely and to take appropriate decisions on that subject.
67. On the subject of methyl bromide, a number of representatives said they were in favour of more stringent controls on the substance, although some of them recognized that it was still indispensable for agricultural production and quarantine purposes. Another of them said that the regional grouping of which his country currently held the presidency was to reduce its consumption of methyl bromide by 25 per cent by the end of 1997. One representative said that methyl bromide was the only controlled substance produced by his country and legislation and administrative measures were currently being prepared to control its production. He expressed his country's great interest in developing cooperation projects in the Middle East and other areas of the world for reduction of methyl bromide emissions, as well as a project to monitor ground-level UV radiation in the Middle East. Several other representatives said that there were no clear and readily available alternatives to methyl bromide and the economic implications of its phase-out for Article 5 countries would be very serious, especially as there were no funding arrangements. One of them added that he had yet to be convinced that man-made sources of methyl bromide were indeed the cause of ozone depletion.
68. Several representatives voiced the need to develop halon banks at appropriate prices with stocks of sufficient quality. The representative of an Article 5 country reviewed his country's plans to eliminate imports of halon and develop a halon bank. The representative of a non-Article 5 country said it was clear that no production of halons was needed to satisfy the essential uses of Parties not operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol.
69. The observer for the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) said that ITRI was a non-profit, non-governmental organization in Taiwan, which had been assisting its communities in organizing and coordinating the ozone protection efforts and had been attending Montreal Protocol meetings as an observer since 1990. She wished to reiterate ITRI's willingness to promote the implementation of the Protocol and to be a part of the truly global effort in protecting the ozone layer.
70. The representative of China said that the information his country had provided to the Secretariat also covered Taiwan.
71. The observer for the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, India, speaking on behalf of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, Pesticide Action Network, and the Sustainable Agriculture Alliance, said that it was clear from the scientific information presented that action must be taken on HCFCs and methyl bromide, to prevent further significant depletion of the ozone layer. Renewed diplomatic and financial commitments were needed to face those challenges. Continuing financial support for the Multilateral Fund must be ensured. In addition, there needed to be full provision for dissemination of information to the Article 5 countries about environmentally sound alternatives, so that they could make informed choices for themselves and not get pushed into directions which they might regret later. Industrialized countries had sold methyl bromide to Article 5 countries. They thus had an obligation to make real efforts to set up bilateral projects to assist Article 5 countries to introduce environmentally sound alternatives as soon as possible. More than 80 per cent of methyl bromide was used in industrialized countries. They therefore had a responsibility, and the resources, to start replacing it immediately. For the sake of future human health and food supplies, industrialized countries must not wait another year until the next Meeting of the Parties, but must make national phase-out commitments immediately.
72. Under agenda items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the Meeting had before it the report of the Executive Director to the Fifth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/2 and Corr.1 (English and Chinese only) and Corr.2), the financial report on the Trust Funds for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol for the biennium 1992-1993 and expenditures for 1993 as compared to the approved budget (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/3 and Corr.1), the financial report for 1993 and the revised 1994 and 1995 budgets and the proposed 1996 budget for the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/4), the report of the Secretariat on the reporting of data by the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/5), and the report of the Executive Committee to the Sixth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/6/Rev.1). It also had before it the draft decisions submitted to it by the Preparatory Meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/Prep/2 and Corr.1, annex), prepared on the basis of the draft decisions circulated by the Secretariat prior to the meetings (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/L.1 and Corr.1).
73. The report of the Preparatory Meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/Prep/2 and Corr.1) was introduced by its Chairman.
74. The Sixth Meeting adopted a number of decisions on the basis of the draft decisions submitted by the Preparatory Meeting. All the draft decisions were adopted by consensus, with the comments and amendments reflected in paragraphs 85 to 109 below.
75. In addition to the draft decisions adopted, the Meeting also had before it at its closing meeting a draft decision VI/6 which had been forwarded to it in square brackets by the Preparatory Meeting.
76. The Chairman of the Preparatory Meeting proposed that since there was no consensus on the draft, it should be withdrawn.
77. The representative of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, supported the proposal of the Chairman of the Preparatory Meeting.
78. The President said that the Bureau proposed that the decision should be taken up at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties.
79. Two representatives of countries with economies in transition explained the economic realities of that group of countries. Postponing a decision on the status of those countries would delay their phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
80. One representative, supported by several others, said that, since it was for the GEF Council to decide on the allocation of GEF funds, the withdrawal of the draft would not mean very much in reality.
81. One representative agreed that the decision should be taken up by the Open-ended Working Group at its next meeting. Another cautioned, however, that the Working Group could go no further than making recommendations to the Meeting of the Parties.
82. In response to a statement that all Parties were entitled to raise issues at the Working Group and that it was not for the Meeting of the Parties to decide on the Group's agenda, one representative said that, in the past, the Group had decided that it could not consider certain issues because it had no mandate to do so.
83. In response, the Secretariat clarified that, while the Working Group would consider the issues entrusted to it by the Meeting of the Parties, Parties were free to raise additional issues under "other matters".
84. The Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer decided:
- To confirm the positions of Burkina Faso, Chile, Jordan, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation as members of the Implementation Committee for one further year, and to select Austria, Bulgaria, Peru, Philippines and the United Republic of Tanzania as members of the Committee for a two-year period;
- To adopt the following principles regarding treatment of classified and reclassified developing country Parties:
- That, for the year 1995 no level of production or consumption is necessary to satisfy essential uses of halons in Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, since there are technically and economically feasible alternatives and substitutes for most applications, and since halons are available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked and recycled halons;
- Taking into account: That some Parties may have interpreted use of controlled substances in some applications where they are used as process agents as feedstock application; That other Parties have interpreted similar applications as use and thereby subject to phase-out; That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel has been unable to recommend exemption, under the essential use criteria, to Parties submitting applications of such uses nominated in 1994; and The pressing requirement for elaboration of the issue and the need for appropriate action by all Parties;
- To request the Panels, as an inclusion in their ongoing work, to evaluate, without prejudice to Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, the technical and economic feasibility, and the environmental, scientific, and economic implications for non-Article 5 countries, as well as Article 5 countries, bearing in mind Article 5, paragraph 1 bis, of the Copenhagen Amendment, of:
these matters, the Scientific Assessment Panel shall consider,
if possible, atmospheric chlorine and bromine loadings and their
impact on ozone depletion. The Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel and Scientific Assessment Panel evaluations shall be solely
for the purpose of discussions by the Parties and shall in no
way be construed as recommendations for action.
In considering these matters, the Scientific Assessment Panel shall consider, if possible, atmospheric chlorine and bromine loadings and their impact on ozone depletion. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and Scientific Assessment Panel evaluations shall be solely for the purpose of discussions by the Parties and shall in no way be construed as recommendations for action.
- That, in order to facilitate implementation of the Protocol's provision concerning the supply of controlled substances to meet the basis domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Protocol, a Party may opt to use either decision V/25 or the following:
- To request the Open-ended Working Group to make recommendations to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties concerning the following issues:
- To endorse the selection of Mr. John Carstensen of Denmark and Mr. N. R. Krishnan of India as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 1995;
Recalling decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties, which established the Financial Mechanism, including the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, provided for in Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol, as amended in London on 29 June 1990,
- To clarify the nature and legal status of the Fund as a body under international law as follows:
- To request the Open-ended Working Group to examine the proposal to amend the indicative list of categories of incremental costs under the Montreal Protocol, as proposed by India and Malaysia and any other related specific proposals brought by the Parties to the eleventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;
85. The representative of Malta said that his Government pledged to sustain its commitment to fulfilling its obligations under the Montreal Protocol. The reclassification of his country confirmed its rightful access to the Multilateral Fund, which would not imply any serious threat to the Fund. Drawing attention to paragraph (e) of the draft decision, he said that a more equitable compromise could be achieved by changing the word "such" at the beginning of the second sentence of that paragraph to "certain", thus giving the Parties and the Executive Committee additional flexibility in their decisions on the subject.
86. The representative of Cyprus said that, being a small-island State with no ODS-production facilities, Cyprus did not represent a threat to the Fund. His country should not be deprived of access to the Fund while its country programme still had not been completed. Without a country programme, Cyprus could not assess its financial requirements. The matter should therefore be reconsidered after the preparation of the programme.
87. The Meeting noted the views expressed by the representatives of Malta and Cyprus.
88. The representative of Malaysia said that it had been his understanding that the word "voluntary" should be placed before the word "contributions" in paragraph 2 (b) of the draft decision on this subject.
89. In response, the Secretariat explained that it had been customary for Meetings of the Parties not to use the words "voluntary" or "assessed" when deciding upon contributions. While approving the budget, the Meeting of the Parties also approved the contribution to be made by each Party and the Parties accepted those decisions.
90. The representative of Uganda, speaking as Coordinator of the African Group, said that the Group had agreed that Kenya, Senegal, Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe would be co-opted to participate in meetings of the Executive Committee along with the core members of the Committee from Africa.
91. The representative of Egypt said that his delegation had also been co-opted into the delegation of Algeria by the African Group on the understanding that the Egyptian Government was to pay for the participation costs as necessary. The representative of Algeria confirmed that arrangement.
92. The representative of Argentina said that his country's delegation on the Executive Committee would include representatives of Brazil, Uruguay and Chile.
93. In response to a statement by the representative of Malaysia, speaking as coordinator of the Asian Group, the representative of Colombia, speaking as Chairman of the subgroup that had drafted the draft decision, said that the purpose of paragraph 2 of the draft was to recognize the concern of Article 5 countries. Subparagraph (e) identified the needs of such countries for adequate resources, which included both present and future funding. The words "new and additional" had not been inserted because no distinction had been made between present and future resources.
94. Decisions VI/14 A and B were adopted on the basis of draft decisions VI/15 and VI/15 bis submitted by the Preparatory Committee as amended on the basis of a conference room paper that had been circulated during the Meeting.
95. Some representatives said that the decision contained commitments that could lead to problems for Governments when it came to implementing them especially with regard to the compilation of import statistics. The Seventh Meeting of the Parties could reconsider a way of implementing the decision, taking account of practical realities. Supporting this, some of those representatives suggested that the Open-ended Working Group should be requested to consider the decisions in view of the difficulties that certain countries had with their contents. Another representative said that his delegation had difficulties with paragraphs 1 and 2 of draft decision VI/15. It still believed that draft decision VI/15 bis was more appropriate and was the best way to proceed. His delegation believed that the definition of "basic domestic needs" should include ozone-depleting substances and not just products containing such substances. He was concerned that the decision would encourage some industries to start trading before the needs were justified, in which case the Government concerned could encounter enforcement problems and fail in its obligations. Noting that Article 5 countries already had problems in reporting data, he said that he could accept the compromise in the conference room paper and draft decision 15 bis.
96. One representative said that he would prefer to see the draft decisions adopted without the chapeau, since that would avoid having two regimes in place in the future. Some representatives noted that decision V/25 was still in operation and was more onerous than the draft being proposed. There were many problems with the current decision and the draft before the Meeting was an interim solution.
97. The amended draft decision V/15 and draft decision VI/15 bis were then adopted as decisions VI/14 A and VI/14 B.
98. The representative of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that India had been nominated by that Group to serve as Co-Chair of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties for 1995. At the same time, it had agreed on the principle of rotation of the co-chairmanship among Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, in that order. The African Group had approved the candidature of Mauritius for the next one-year term, from the Seventh to the Eighth Meeting of the Parties.
99. The representative of Uganda, speaking as Coordinator of the African Group, said that Group understood that the term of office of Co-Chairs was one year and that the Group had nominated Mauritius to Co-Chair the Open-ended Working Group for 1996. In response, the representative of Egypt, supported by the representative of Ghana, said it was his understanding that, while the African Group had initially presented the candidature of Mauritius for 1995, the decision to change the year for the African term meant that it was now premature to make any nomination. The decision on the Co-Chair for 1996 would be taken at the appropriate time in accordance with the prevailing circumstances.
100. The representative of Costa Rica, speaking as Coordinator of the Latin American Caribbean Group, supported the statements made by the Group of 77 and Uganda and said the Group agreed fully with the rotation proposed and a term of office lasting from one Meeting of the Parties to the next. His Group would propose a candidate for the third term in due course.
101. The representative of Malaysia, speaking as coordinator of the Asian Group, said that the issue of rotation was a very important one and that the Group wished to consider the matter further.
102. The representative of the Group of 77 subsequently announced that the co-chairmanship of the Open-ended Working Group from the Article 5 countries would rotate among the Asian and Pacific, African and Latin American and Caribbean groups in that order for one year. "One year" was interpreted as the period between two annual Meetings of the Parties. The Chairman for 1995 would be from India, as nominated by the Asian and Pacific group.
103. The representative of Japan said that, while his delegation had no objections to the arrangements between the Multilateral Fund and Canada, his country was unable to join in the consensus since it needed prior authorization to give legal personality to international bodies. Japan therefore reserved its position on the decision.
104. The representative of Malaysia proposed that the last two sentences of paragraph 53 of the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/12) should be deleted since they were an inaccurate reflection of the proceedings at the Meeting. After a lengthy discussion, the Meeting decided to request the Secretariat to consult the Rapporteur of the Fifth Meeting and arrange for the issuance of an appropriate corrigendum to the report of that Meeting.
105. In response to a question, the Secretariat clarified that, as a body within UNEP, Secretariat travel was governed by UNEP rules. He also noted that, with reference to subparagraph (a) of paragraph 137 of the report of the Preparatory Meeting, it was the Secretariat's understanding that subparagraph (a) did not apply to Meetings of the Executive Committee.
106. The Meeting decided to continue, with respect to meetings of the Executive Committee, the current practice of financing more than one delegate from each Article 5 country.
107. The Meeting noted that the words "most advantageous economy-class fare" in line 3 of footnote (e) in the explanatory notes to the budget would be changed to "most appropriate economical fare". The new wording would be incorporated into the text of the budget approved by decision VI/17 (see annex IV to the present report).
108. In response to a question, the Secretariat clarified that the cost of the study referred to in paragraph 7 of the decision would be absorbed within the approved 1995 budget of the Secretariat.
109. The Secretariat informed the Meeting that, in order to facilitate full consideration of the reports to be prepared during 1995, meetings of the Open-ended Working Group would be held from 8 to 12 May 1995 in Nairobi and from 28 August to 1 September 1995 in a location to be fixed. He noted that those dates differed from those in the report of the Preparatory Meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/Prep/2 and Corr.1).
110. One representative requested that a Declaration by a number of Article 5 Parties be included in the report. The Meeting decided to annex the said Declaration to its report (see annex V hereto).
111. The present report, together with the annexes hereto, was adopted at the closing session of the Meeting on the basis of the draft report contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/L.2 and Add.1.
112. After the customary exchange of courtesies, the President declared the Sixth Meeting of the Parties closed at 5.40 p.m. on Friday, 7 October 1994.
QUANTITY COUNTRY CATEGORY CHEMICAL YEAR (TONNES) USE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTRALIA AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 80 MDI AUSTRALIA AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 10 MDI AUSTRALIA AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 200 MDI CANADA AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 152 MDI CANADA AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 70 MDI CANADA AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 377 MDI EC-BELGIUM AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 90 MDI EC-BELGIUM AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 95 MDI EC-DENMARK AEROSOL CFCS 1996 <5 MDI EC-FRANCE AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 618 MDI EC-FRANCE AEROSOL CFC-113 1996 30.1 MDI EC-FRANCE AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 153 MDI EC-FRANCE AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 1063 MDI EC-GERMANY AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 178 MDI EC-GERMANY AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 178 MDI EC-GERMANY AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 417 MDI EC-IRELAND AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 145 MDI EC-IRELAND AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 264 MDI EC-ITALY AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 145 MDI EC-ITALY AEROSOL CFC-113 1996 5 MDI EC-ITALY AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 50 MDI EC-ITALY AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 340 MDI EC-PORTUGAL AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 3.63 MDI EC-PORTUGAL AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 8.38 MDI EC-PORTUGAL AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 1.2 MDI EC-SPAIN AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 146 MDI EC-SPAIN AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 362 MDI EC-SPAIN AEROSOL CFC-113 1996 1 MDI EC-SPAIN AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 39 MDI EC-UK AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 1031 MDI EC-UK AEROSOL CFC-113 1996 32 MDI EC-UK AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 363 MDI EC-UK AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 1762 MDI FINLAND AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 6 MDI FINLAND AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 16 MDI JAPAN AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 75 MDI JAPAN AEROSOL CFC-113 1996 1 MDI JAPAN AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 22 MDI JAPAN AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 142 MDI POLAND AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 330 MEDICAL POLAND AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 330 MEDICAL POLAND AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 40 MEDICAL S.AFRICA AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 59 MDI S.AFRICA AEROSOL CFC-11 1997 67 MDI S.AFRICA AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 7 MDI S.AFRICA AEROSOL CFC-114 1997 9 MDI S.AFRICA AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 123 MDI S.AFRICA AEROSOL CFC-12 1997 138 MDI SWITZERLAND AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 8 MDI SWITZERLAND AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 8 MDI SWITZERLAND AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 8 MDI USA AEROSOL CFC-11 1996 749.8 MDI USA AEROSOL CFC-11 1997 658.3 MDI USA AEROSOL CFC-114 1996 343.7 MDI USA AEROSOL CFC-114 1997 343.1 MDI USA AEROSOL CFC-12 1996 2363.2 MDI USA AEROSOL CFC-12 1997 2177 MDI
QUANTITY COUNTRY CATEGORY CHEMICAL YEAR (TONNES) USE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USA SOLVENTS TCA 1996 56.8 SPACE SHUTTLE USA SOLVENTS TCA 1997 56.8 SPACE SHUTTLE
% CTC (reagent grade) 99.5 1,1,1-trichloroethane 99.0 CFC-11 99.5 CFC-13 99.5 CFC-12 99.5 CFC-113 99.5 CFC-114 99.5 Other w/Boiling P > 20o C 99.5 Other w/Boiling P < 20o C 99.0
|----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | | UNITED NATIONS| PERCENTAGES | ADJUSTED | | | | | | SCALE | ADJUSTED TO | PERCENTAGES | 1 9 9 4 | 1 9 9 5 | 1 9 9 6 | | PARTY | OF | EXCLUDE | WITH 25% | CONTRIBUTIONS | CONTRIBUTIONS | CONTRIBUTIONS | | | ASSESSMENTS | NON- | CEILING | BY PARTIES | BY PARTIES | BY PARTIES | | | | CONTRIBUTORS | CONSIDERED | | | | |----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | | | | | | | | | Algeria | 0.16% | 0.16% | 0.16% | 4,885 | 5,927 | 4,516 | | Antigua and Barbuda | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Argentina | 0.57% | 0.57% | 0.57% | 17,404 | 21,117 | 16,088 | | Australia | 1.51% | 1.51% | 1.51% | 46,106 | 55,941 | 42,620 | | Austria | 0.75% | 0.75% | 0.75% | 22,900 | 27,785 | 21,169 | | Bahamas | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bahrain | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bangladesh | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Barbados | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Belarus | 0.48% | 0.48% | 0.48% | 14,656 | 17,782 | 13,548 | | Belgium | 1.06% | 1.06% | 1.06% | 32,366 | 39,270 | 29,918 | | Benin | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Botswana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Brazil | 1.59% | 1.59% | 1.59% | 48,549 | 58,904 | 44,878 | | Brunei Darussalam | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bulgaria | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.13% | 3,969 | 4,816 | 3,669 | | Burkina Faso | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Cameroon | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Canada | 3.11% | 3.11% | 3.11% | 94,960 | 115,215 | 87,780 | | Central African Republic | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Chad | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Chile | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | China | 0.77% | 0.77% | 0.77% | 23,511 | 28,526 | 21,733 | | Colombia | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.13% | 3,969 | 4,816 | 3,669 | | Costa Rica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Cote d'Ivoire | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croatia | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.13% | 3,969 | 4,816 | 3,669 | | Cuba | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Cyprus | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Czech Republic | 0.42% | 0.42% | 0.42% | 12,824 | 15,560 | 11,854 | | Denmark | 0.65% | 0.65% | 0.65% | 19,847 | 24,080 | 18,346 | | Dominica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Dominican Republic | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Ecuador | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Egypt | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | El Salvador | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Fiji | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Finland | 0.57% | 0.57% | 0.57% | 17,404 | 21,117 | 16,088 | | France | 6.00% | 6.00% | 6.01% | 183,202 | 222,280 | 169,350 | | Gabon | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Gambia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Germany | 8.93% | 8.93% | 8.94% | 272,666 | 330,827 | 252,049 | | Ghana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Greece | 0.35% | 0.35% | 0.35% | 10,687 | 12,966 | 9,879 | | Grenada | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Guatemala | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Guinea | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Guyana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Honduras | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hungary | 0.18% | 0.18% | 0.18% | 5,496 | 6,668 | 5,080 | | Iceland | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | India | 0.36% | 0.36% | 0.36% | 10,992 | 13,337 | 10,161 | | Indonesia | 0.16% | 0.16% | 0.16% | 4,885 | 5,927 | 4,516 | | Iran (Islamic Republic of) | 0.77% | 0.77% | 0.77% | 23,511 | 28,526 | 21,733 | | Ireland | 0.18% | 0.18% | 0.18% | 5,496 | 6,668 | 5,080 | | Israel | 0.23% | 0.23% | 0.23% | 7,023 | 8,521 | 6,492 | | Italy | 4.29% | 4.29% | 4.30% | 130,989 | 158,930 | 121,085 | | Jamaica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Japan | 12.45% | 12.45% | 12.47% | 380,144 | 461,232 | 351,401 | | Jordan | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kenya | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kiribati | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kuwait | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | 7,633 | 9,262 | 7,056 | | Lebanon | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lesotho | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Libyan Arab Jamahiriya | 0.24% | 0.24% | 0.24% | 7,328 | 8,891 | 6,774 | | Liechtenstein | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Luxembourg | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Malawi | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Malaysia | 0.12% | 0.12% | 0.12% | 3,664 | 4,446 | 3,387 | | Maldives | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Malta | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Marshall Islands | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Mauritania | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Mauritius | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Mexico | 0.88% | 0.88% | 0.88% | 26,870 | 32,601 | 24,838 | | Monaco | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Mozambique | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Myanmar | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Namibia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Nepal | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Netherlands | 1.50% | 1.50% | 1.50% | 45,801 | 55,570 | 42,337 | | New Zealand | 0.24% | 0.24% | 0.24% | 7,328 | 8,891 | 6,774 | | Nicaragua | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Niger | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Nigeria | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% | 6,107 | 7,409 | 5,645 | | Norway | 0.55% | 0.55% | 0.55% | 16,794 | 20,376 | 15,524 | | Pakistan | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Panama | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Papua New Guinea | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Paraguay | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Peru | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Philippines | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Poland | 0.47% | 0.47% | 0.47% | 14,351 | 17,412 | 13,266 | | Portugal | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% | 6,107 | 7,409 | 5,645 | | Republic of Korea | 0.69% | 0.69% | 0.69% | 21,068 | 25,562 | 19,475 | | Romania | 0.17% | 0.17% | 0.17% | 5,191 | 6,298 | 4,798 | | Russian Federation | 6.71% | 6.71% | 6.72% | 204,881 | 248,583 | 189,390 | | Saint Kitts and Nevis | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Saint Lucia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Samoa | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Saudi Arabia | 0.96% | 0.96% | 0.96% | 29,312 | 35,565 | 27,096 | | Senegal | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Seychelles | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Singapore | 0.12% | 0.12% | 0.12% | 3,664 | 4,446 | 3,387 | | Slovakia | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.13% | 3,969 | 4,816 | 3,669 | | Slovenia | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Solomon Islands | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | South Africa | 0.41% | 0.41% | 0.41% | 12,519 | 15,189 | 11,572 | | Spain | 1.98% | 1.98% | 1.98% | 60,457 | 73,352 | 55,885 | | Sri Lanka | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Sudan | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Swaziland | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Sweden | 1.11% | 1.11% | 1.11% | 33,892 | 41,122 | 31,330 | | Switzerland | 1.16% | 1.16% | 1.16% | 35,419 | 42,974 | 32,741 | | Syrian Arab Republic | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Thailand | 0.11% | 0.11% | 0.11% | 3,359 | 4,075 | 3,105 | | The former Yugoslav | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Republic of Macedonia | | | | | | | | Togo | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Trinidad and Tobago | 0.05% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Tunisia | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Turkey | 0.27% | 0.27% | 0.27% | 8,244 | 10,003 | 7,621 | | Turkmenistan | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Tuvalu | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Uganda | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Ukraine | 1.87% | 1.87% | 1.87% | 57,098 | 69,277 | 52,781 | | United Arab Emirates | 0.21% | 0.21% | 0.21% | 6,412 | 7,780 | 5,927 | | United Kingdom | 5.02% | 5.02% | 5.03% | 153,279 | 185,974 | 141,689 | | United Republic of Tanzania| 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | United States of America | 25.00% | 25.00% ! 25.00% | 762,184 | 924,763 | 704,554 | | Uruguay | 0.04% | 0.00% ! 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Uzbekistan | 0.26% | 0.26% | 0.26% | 7,939 | 9,632 | 7,338 | | Venezuela | 0.49% | 0.49% ! 0.49% | 14,962 | 18,153 | 13,830 | | Viet Nam | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Yugoslavia | 0.14% | 0.14% ! 0.14% | 4,275 | 5,187 | 3,951 | | Zambia | 0.01% | 0.00% ! 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Zimbabwe | 0.01% | 0.00% ! 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | | ! | | | | | European Community | 2.50% | 2.50% ! 2.50% | 76,218 | 92,476 | 70,455 | | | | ! | | | | |============================|===============|===============!===============|===============|===============|===============| | TOTAL | 101.59% | 99.89% ! 100.00% | 3,048,735 | 3,699,050 | 2,818,215 | |============================|===============|===============!===============|===============|===============|===============|
10 PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT (a) w/m 1994 w/m 1995 w/m 1996 1100 Project personnel (Title and grade) ---- ---- ---- 1101 Secretary (Coordinator) (D-1/2) 6 58 000 6 59 000 6 60 000 (shared with Vienna Convention (VC)) 1102 Deputy Secretary (Lawyer) (P-5/D-1) 12 98 000 12 100 000 12 102 000 1103 Programme Officer (Lawyer) (P-3/4) 12 79 000 12 81 000 12 83 000 1104 Programme Officer (P-3/4) 6 41 000 6 43 000 6 43 000 (Chemist/Scientist) (shared with VC) 1105 Administrative Officer (P-2/3) 6 34 000 6 36 000 6 36 000 (shared with VC) Prior year's adjustments 1199 Subtotal 310 000 319 000 324 000 1200 Consultants (b) 1201 Assistance in data reporting analysis, promotion of the protocol and evaluation of the Financial Mechanism 225 000 275 000 25 000 1299 Subtotal 225 000 275 000 25 000 1300 Administrative support costs (c) Support staff costs (Title and grade) ------------------- 1301 Administrative Assistant (G-6) 6 8 000 6 8 500 6 9 000 (shared with VC) 1302 Senior Secretary (G-5) 12 14 000 12 15 000 12 15 500 1304 Secretary (shared with VC) (G-4) 6 7 000 6 7 500 6 8 000 1305 Secretary (shared with VC) (G-4) 6 7 000 6 7 500 6 8 000 1306 Document Clerk (G-3) 12 6 500 12 7 000 12 7 500 1320 Temporary Assistance 5 000 5 000 5 500 Subtotal support staff costs 47 500 50 000 53 500 Conference-servicing costs (d) 1994 1995 1996 1321 Open-ended Working Group meetings 370 000 740 000 390 000 1322 Preparatory and Parties meetings 393 000 393 000 280 000 1323 Meetings of the Assessment Panel 30 000 30 000 31 000 1324 Meetings of the Bureau 37 000 37 000 39 000 1325 Meeting of the Committees 25 000 25 000 26 000 1326 Informal consultation meetings 10 000 20 000 11 000 Subtotal conference-servicing costs 865 000 1 245 000 777 000 1399 Subtotal 912 500 1 295 500 830 500 1600 Travel on official business 1601 Secretariat staff 100 000 80 000 100 000 1602 UNEP conference-servicing staff 20 000 20 000 20 000 1699 Subtotal 120 000 100 000 120 000 1999 Component total 1 567 500 1 989 500 1 299 500 30 TRAINING/PARTICIPATION COMPONENT 3300 Participation costs of developing countries (e) 3301 Assessment panel meetings 300 000 300 000 300 000 3302 Preparatory and Parties meetings 240 000 240 000 220 000 3303 Open-ended Working Group meetings 180 000 360 000 200 000 3304 Bureau meetings 24 000 24 000 30 000 3305 Committee meetings 48 000 48 000 60 000 3399 Subtotal 792 000 972 000 810 000 3999 Component total 792 000 972 000 810 000 40 EQUIPMENT AND PREMISES COMPONENT 4100 Expendable equipment (items under $1,500) 1994 1995 1996 4101 Miscellaneous expendables (f) 18 000 21 000 24 000 (shared with VC) 4199 Subtotal 18 000 21 000 24 000 4200 Non-expendable equipment (g) 4201 Personal computers and accessories (shared with VC) 5 000 0 10 000 4202 Portable computers (shared with VC) 3 500 0 3 000 4203 E-mail/bulletin board and others 6 000 5 000 5 000 (shared with VC) 4299 Subtotal 14 500 5 000 18 000 4300 Rental of office premises 4300 Rental of office premises 15 000 15 000 15 000 (shared with VC) 4399 Subtotal 15 000 15 000 15 000 4999 Component Total 47 500 41 000 57 000 50 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT 5100 Operation and maintenance of equipment 5101 Maintenance of equipment 9 000 10 000 11 000 (shared with VC) 5199 Subtotal 9 000 10 000 11 000 5200 Reporting costs (h) 5201 Reporting (general) 40 000 50 000 55 000 5202 Reporting (assessment panel reports) 66 000 25 000 27 500 5299 Subtotal 106 000 75 000 82 500 5300 Sundries 1994 1995 1996 5301 Communications 30 000 35 000 50 000 5302 Freight charges (documents shipment) (1) 35 000 40 000 73 000 5303 Others 5 000 5 000 5 000 5399 Subtotal 70 000 80 000 128 000 5400 Hospitality 5401 Hospitality 17 500 17 500 17 500 5499 Subtotal 17 500 17 500 17 500 5999 Component Total 202 500 182 500 239 000 99 TOTAL 2 609 500 3 185 000 2 405 500 Contingency 100 000 100 000 100 000 Programme support costs (13%) 339 235 414 050 312 715 GRAND TOTAL 3 048 735 3 699 050 2 818 215
Explanatory Notes for the Budget
One Open-ended Working Group
meeting will be held during 1996, using six languages and lasting
The Preparatory and Parties meeting in 1996 for Vienna
Convention and the Montreal Protocol in six languages, will be
convened back-to-back in Nairobi. The cost provided for the Montreal
Protocol budget is arrived at after deducting the amount provided
by the Parties to the Vienna Convention ($200,000) from the total
anticipated cost for all the meetings ($480,000).
The two Bureau
meetings are scheduled for 1996, using three languages.
Implementation Committee meetings, in English only, are assumed
to take place in Nairobi.
The one informal consultation, in English,
is assumed to take place in Nairobi.
One Open-ended Working Group meeting will be held during 1996, using six languages and lasting five days.
The Preparatory and Parties meeting in 1996 for Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol in six languages, will be convened back-to-back in Nairobi. The cost provided for the Montreal Protocol budget is arrived at after deducting the amount provided by the Parties to the Vienna Convention ($200,000) from the total anticipated cost for all the meetings ($480,000).
The two Bureau meetings are scheduled for 1996, using three languages.
The two Implementation Committee meetings, in English only, are assumed to take place in Nairobi.
The one informal consultation, in English, is assumed to take place in Nairobi.
The above Article 5 countries, Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: