Skip to main content

TEAP Primer

 

The Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel Primer

Foreword

This is an online compendium of Questions and Answers (Q&A) related to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the Montreal Protocol). It is intended to provide new delegates attending the meetings of the Montreal Protocol and new members of the TEAP with a concise description of the way the Panel operates in discharging its mandate under the Protocol.

The Q&A compendium consists of an introduction and two parts:

  • Part I describes the role and structure of the TEAP and its subsidiary bodies, the nomination and appointment procedures followed in the recruitment of members, the functioning and organization of its work, its code of conduct, and disclosure and conflict of interest guidelines. To avoid interpretation, answers to questions on the above matters are provided verbatim as provided in the TEAP Terms of Reference (TOR), set out in the Annex to decision XXIV/8: Terms of reference, code of conduct and disclosure and conflict of interest guidelines for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies.
  • Part II summarizes the reporting undertaken by the TEAP and its subsidiary bodies, including an outline of the main processes under the Protocol that engage the Panel.

The Q&A compendium will be updated as and when there is a need to do so in the future.

 

Introduction

Under the Montreal Protocol there are currently three Assessment Panels which provide scientific, environmental, technical and economic information to assist parties take informed decisions pertaining to substances controlled under the Protocol including their substitutes and alternative technologies. These Assessment Panels are:

  • the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP);
  • the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP); and
  • the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP).

The Panels were endorsed by the First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (MOP) in 1989. On Technical and Economic issues there were originally two separate Assessment Panels which were merged to form the TEAP in 1990.

The establishment of the Assessment Panels is based on Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol which provides that:

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

In addition to the quadrennial assessments stipulated in the Article 6, the Panels perform specific tasks requested by parties in MOP decisions.

The SAP assesses the status of the depletion of the ozone layer and relevant atmospheric science issues such as the interlinkages between ozone and climate. It consists of hundreds of scientists from around the world working in those fields.

The EEAP assesses the various effects of ozone layer depletion on human health and the environment. Its members are scientists working primarily in photobiology and photochemistry.

The TEAP assesses technical and economic information that serves as the basis for parties’ assessment of control measures of substances under the purview of the Montreal Protocol. Such information is related to substitutes that may replace the substances controlled under the Protocol and alternative technologies that may be used without adverse impact on the ozone layer and climate, production and consumption of controlled substances, emissions of controlled substances, potential alternatives for exempted uses and others, as mandated by the parties.

Key information pertaining to all Assessment Panels and the reports that they have been produced to date are available on the Panels’ portals of the Ozone Secretariat website.

 

PART I: The operation of the TEAP and its Subsidiary Bodies

A. Terms of Reference, Scope of Work and General structure

1. What are the Terms of Reference of the TEAP and its subsidiary bodies?

The Terms of Reference (TOR) of the TEAP and its subsidiary bodies were first adopted by Decision I/3 in 1989 but have evolved over time. The latest TOR version was adopted by the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties in 2012 and is set out in the Annex to decision XXIV/8 entitled “Terms of reference, code of conduct and disclosure and conflict of interest guidelines for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies”.

2. What is the scope of work of the TEAP?

TOR 1

"The tasks undertaken by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) are those specified in Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol in addition to those requested from time to time at Meetings of the Parties. TEAP analyses and presents technical information and recommendations when specifically requested. It does not evaluate policy issues and does not recommend policy. TEAP presents technical and economic information relevant to policy. Furthermore, TEAP does not judge the merit or success of national plans, strategies, or regulations.

To carry out its work programme, technical options committees (TOCs) are established and agreed to by a decision of the parties. TEAP may also establish temporary subsidiary bodies (TSBs), as needed. These bodies generally will not last for more than one year and are aimed at responding to specific requests made by the parties."

3. What are the current TOCs?

The TOCs are established and agreed by a decision of the parties to carry out the work programme of the TEAP. The number and composition of TOCs has varied over time to respond to the evolving needs of the parties for technical and economic information on various issues. At present, there are five TOCs, namely:

  • The Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC),
  • The Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC),
  • The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC),
  • The Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee (MCTOC), and
  • The Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC).

For issues that cannot be handled by the existing TOCs and are of substantial and continuing nature, TEAP should request the establishment by the parties of a new TOC. A decision of the Meeting of the Parties is required to confirm any TSB that exists for a period of more than one year (TOR 2.6).

4. Which are the types of TSBs?

TSBs are appointed by the TEAP in response to parties’ requests to report on specific issues of limited duration. TSBs may either take the form of a working group or a task force, depending on the membership of the TSB concerned:

  1. A working group consists of TEAP members
  2. A task force consists of members of TEAP and its TOCs as well as outside experts to supplement the expertise available within the Panel and its TOCs.

 

B. Size and balance

1. What is the overall goal of the TEAP in terms of its size and balance?

TOR 2.1.0

"The overall goal is to achieve a representation of about 50 per cent for Article 5(1) Parties in the TEAP and TOCs and appropriate representation of expertise in the different alternatives."

 

 

 

2. What is the size and balance of the TEAP?

TOR 2.1.1

"The membership size of the TEAP should be about 18-22 members, including 2 or 3 co-chairs to allow it to function effectively. It should include the co-chairs of the TOCs; there should be two co-chairs per TOC and 2-4 Senior Experts for specific expertise not covered by the TEAP co-chairs or TOC co-chairs, taking into account gender and geographical balance.

At least one and preferably all of the TEAP co-chairs should not simultaneously serve as a TOC co-chair."

3. What is the size and balance of the TOCs?

TOR 2.1.2 

"Each TOC should have two co-chairs. The positions of TOC co-chairs must be filled to promote a geographical, gender and expertise balance. TEAP, through its TOC co-chairs, shall compose its TOCs to reflect a balance of appropriate and anticipated expertise so that their reports and information are comprehensive, objective and policy-neutral."

 

 

4. What is the size and balance of the TSBs?

TOR 2.1.3 

"TEAP, in consultation with the TSB co-chairs, shall compose its TSBs to reflect a balance of appropriate expertise so that their reports and information are comprehensive, objective and policy-neutral. TEAP, acting through the TSB co-chairs, shall provide a description in reports by TSBs on how their composition was determined. TSB members, including co-chairs, who are not already members of the TEAP, do not become members of the TEAP by virtue of their service on the TSB."

 

 

C. Nominations for TEAP membership

1. How are the TEAP members nominated?

TOR 2.2.1 

"Nominations of members to the TEAP, including co-chairs of the TEAP and TOCs, must be made by individual Parties to the Secretariat through their respective national focal points. Such nominations will be forwarded to the Meeting of the Parties for consideration. The TEAP co‑chairs shall ensure that any potential nominee identified by TEAP for appointment to the Panel, including co-chairs of TEAP and the TOCs, is agreed to by the national focal points of the relevant party. A member of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs shall not be a current representative of a party to the Montreal Protocol."

2. How are TOC and TSB members nominated?

TOR 2.2.2 

"All nominations to TOCs and TSBs shall be made in full consultation with the national focal point of the relevant party.

Nominations of members to a TOC (other than TOC co-chairs) may be made by individual parties or TEAP and TOC co-chairs may suggest to individual parties experts to consider nominating. Nominations to a TSB (including TSB co-chairs) can be made by the TEAP Co-chairs."

 

 

D. Appointment of TEAP members

1. How are the TEAP members appointed?

TOR 2.3

“In keeping with the intent of the parties for a periodic review of the composition of the assessment panel, the Meeting of the Parties shall appoint the members of TEAP for a period of no more than four years. The Meeting of the Parties may re-appoint Members of the Panel upon nomination by the relevant party for additional periods of up to four years each. In appointing or re‑appointing members of TEAP, the parties should ensure continuity, balance as well as a reasonable turnover.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. How are Co-chairs appointed?

TOR 2.4

“In nominating and appointing co-chairs of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs, parties should consider the following factors:

  1. Co-chairs should have experience or skills in managing, coordinating, and building consensus in technical bodies, in addition to possessing technical expertise in relevant areas;
  2. The co-chairs of a TOC should not normally act as co-chairs of another TOC; and
  3. The co-chairs of TEAP should not be co-chairs of a TOC;
  4. The TEAP and TOC co-chairs may suggest to individual parties experts to consider nominating.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. How are TOC members appointed?

TOR 2.5

“Each TOC should have about 20 members. The TOC members are appointed by the TOC co‑chairs, in consultation with TEAP, for a period of no more than four years. TOC members may be re-appointed following the procedure for nominations for additional periods of up to four years each.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. How are TSB members appointed?

TOR 2.6

“Temporary Subsidiary Technical Bodies (TSBs) can be appointed by TEAP to report on specific issues of limited duration. TEAP may appoint and dissolve, subject to review by the parties, such subsidiary bodies of technical experts when they are no longer necessary. For issues that cannot be handled by the existing TOCs and are of substantial and continuing nature, TEAP should request the establishment by the parties of a new TOC. A decision of the Meeting of the Parties is required to confirm any TSB that exists for a period of more than one year.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. What is the procedure for appointment termination?

TOR 2.7

“Members of TEAP, a TOC or a TSB may relinquish their position at any time by notifying in writing as appropriate the co-chairs of the TEAP, TOC or TSB and the relevant party.

TEAP can dismiss a member of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs, including co-chairs of those bodies, by a two-thirds majority vote of TEAP. A dismissed member has the right to appeal to the next Meeting of the Parties through the Secretariat. The TEAP co-chairs will inform the relevant party if TEAP is dismissing members.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. What is the procedure for the replacement of a TEAP member?

TOR 2.8

“If a member of TEAP, including TOC co-chairs, relinquishes or is unable to function including if he or she was dismissed by TEAP, the Panel, after consultation with the nominating party, can temporarily appoint a replacement from among its bodies for the time up to the next Meeting of the Parties, if necessary to complete its work. For the appointment of a replacement TEAP member, the procedure for nomination should be followed.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. What are the guidelines for nominations and the matrix of needed expertise?

TOR 2.9

“The TEAP/TOCs will draw up guidelines for nominating experts by the parties. The TEAP/TOCs will publicize a matrix of expertise available and the expertise needed in the TEAP/TOCs so as to facilitate submission of appropriate nominations by the parties. The matrix must include the need for geographic and expertise balance and provide consistent information on expertise that is available and required. The matrix would include the name and affiliation and the specific expertise required including on different alternatives. The TEAP/TOCs, acting through their respective co-chairs, shall ensure that the matrix is updated at least once a year and shall publish the matrix on the Secretariat website and in the Panel’s annual progress reports. The TEAP/TOCs shall also ensure that the information in the matrix is clear, sufficient and consistent as far as is appropriate between the TEAP and TOCs and balanced to allow a full understanding of needed expertise.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Where can the matrix of needed expertise be found?

The matrix of needed expertise is updated annually by the TEAP and is included in its annual progress reports. The matrix is then posted by the Secretariat on its website at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. What is the role of the national focal points?

TOR 2.2.1

“Nominations of members to the TEAP, including co-chairs of the TEAP and TOCs, must be made by individual Parties to the Secretariat through their respective national focal points. The TEAP co‑chairs shall ensure that any potential nominee identified by TEAP for appointment to the Panel, including co-chairs of TEAP and the TOCs, is agreed to by the national focal points of the relevant party.”

TOR 2.2.2:

“All nominations to TOCs and TSBs shall be made in full consultation with the national focal point of the relevant party.”

Decision XXXI/8, paras. 3 and 5

When nominating experts to the Panel, its technical options committees or its temporary subsidiary bodies, parties are requested to use the Panel’s nomination form and associated guidelines so as to facilitate the submission of appropriate nominations, taking into account the matrix of needed expertise, and geographical and gender balance, in addition to the expertise needed to address new issues related to the Kigali Amendment, such as energy efficiency, safety standards and climate benefits.

Nominating parties are also urged to follow the terms of reference of the Panel, consult the Panel’s co-chairs and refer to the matrix of needed expertise prior to making nominations for appointments to the Panel.

 

10. What is the role of the Ozone Secretariat in the nomination process?

The Secretariat receives nominations of members to the TEAP, including co-chairs of the TEAP and TOCs, from individual Parties through their respective national focal points (TOR 2.2.1).

Decision XXXI/8, para. 4

The Ozone Secretariat is requested to make the nomination form for Panel membership available on the Secretariat’s website and to make the forms submitted by parties nominating members to the Panel available on meeting portals so as to facilitate the review by and discussions among the parties of the proposed nominations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. What is expected from TEAP, TOCs and TSB members?

Serving on the TEAP is a significant commitment of time and effort, and members should have realistic expectations of their availability to serve on a voluntary basis, given other professional and personal commitments. The work includes drafting parts of reports, modelling or analyses, presenting or responding to questions from parties. All members are expected to participate in meetings, and actively engage in critical consensus review of draft reports/presentations. They are also expected to be responsive and available for planning meetings and the development of the reports requested by the parties to meet key deadlines.

All members of the TEAP, TOCs and TSBs must follow the Code of Conduct for the TEAP and its bodies (TOR 5), while taking into consideration the relevant conflict of interest and disclosure guidelines (TOR 6) and the standard operating procedures developed by the TEAP and its TOCs (see E.4 below).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Functioning of TEAP/TOCs/TSBs

1. What is the working language of the TEAP?

TOR 3.1 

"TEAP/TOCs/TSBs meetings will be held and reports and other documents will be produced only in English."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. When and where are the meetings organized?

TOR 3.2.1 

"The place and time of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs meetings will be fixed by the co-chairs."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. How does the Ozone Secretariat support the functioning of the TEAP?

TOR 3.2.2 

"The Ozone Secretariat should attend the meetings of the TEAP whenever possible and appropriate to provide ongoing institutional advice on administrative issues when necessary."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. What are the operating procedures for the meetings of the TOCs?

TOR 3.2.3 

"Co-chairs of the TOCs should organize meetings in accordance with operating procedures developed by the TOCs in consultation with the Secretariat to ensure full participation of all members, sound and appropriate decision-making and record keeping. The procedures should be updated periodically and made available to the parties."

In Decision XXIV/8, para. 3, the TEAP and its TOCs were requested to make available to the parties their standard operating procedures (SOPs). In response, the Panel set out in in Annexes 3, 4 and 5 of Volume 3 of its May 2013 Report operating procedures with respect to the following issues:

  • Meeting functioning and logistics
  • Consensus
  • Strong Opinion (Bias) and Conflict of Interest

 

5. What are the applicable rules of procedures?

TOR 3.3 

"The rules of procedure of the Montreal Protocol for committees and working groups will be followed in conducting the meetings of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs, unless otherwise stated in these terms of reference for TEAP/TOCs/TSBs or other decisions approved by a Meeting of the Parties."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Can observers attend the meetings?

TOR 3.4 

“No observers will be permitted at TEAP, TOC or TSB meetings. However, anyone can present information to the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs with prior notice and can be heard personally if the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs consider it necessary.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. How do TEAP/TOC/TSB members function?

TOR 3.5 

“The TEAP/TOCs/TSBs members function on a personal basis as experts, irrespective of the source of their nominations and accept no instruction from, nor function as representatives of Governments, industries, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other organizations.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. Report of TEAP/TOCs/TSBs

1. How are reports produced?

TOR 4.1

"The reports of the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs will be developed through a consensus process. The reports must reflect any minority views appropriately."

 

 

 

 

2. Who can access TEAP materials and draft reports?

TOR 4.2

"Access to materials and drafts considered by the TEAP/TOCs/TSBs will be available only to TEAP/TOCs members or others designated by TEAP/TOCs/TSBs."

 

 

 

 

3. How are TOC and TSB final reports reviewed by the TEAP and communicated to the parties?

TOR 4.3

"The final reports of TOCs and TSBs will be reviewed by the TEAP and will be forwarded, without modification (other than editorial or factual corrections which have been agreed with the co‑chairs of the relevant TOC or TSB) by TEAP to the Meeting of the Parties, together with any comments TEAP may wish to provide. Any factual errors in the reports may be rectified through a corrigendum following publication, upon receipt by TEAP or the TOC of supporting documentation."

 

4. Can the public provide comments to the final reports?

TOR 4.4

"Any member of the public can comment to the co-chairs of the TOCs and TSBs with regard to their reports and they must respond as early as possible. If there is no response, these comments can be sent to the TEAP co-chairs for consideration by TEAP."

 

 

 

 

G. Code of Conduct of TEAP/TOC/TSB members

1. What is the purpose of the code of conduct?

TOR 5.1-5.2

"Members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs have been asked by the parties to undertake important responsibilities. As such, a high standard of conduct defined in accordance with the principles of transparency, predictability, accountability, trustworthiness, integrity, responsibility and disclosure is expected of members in discharging their duties. In order to assist members, guidelines have been developed as a Code of Conduct that must be followed by the members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs.

  1. This Code of Conduct is intended to protect Members of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs from conflicts of interest in their participation. Compliance with the measures detailed in these guidelines is a condition for serving as a Member of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs.
  2. The Code is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the process while encouraging experienced and competent persons to accept TEAP, TOC and/or TSB membership by:
    1. Establishing clear guidelines respect to conflict of interest and disclosure while and after serving as a member; and
    2. Minimizing the possibility of conflicts arising between the private interest and public duties of members and by providing for the resolution of such conflicts, in the public interest, should they arise."

2. How should members carry out their duties?

TOR 5.3-5.4 

  1. "
    In carrying out their duties, members shall:
    1. Perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs are conserved and enhanced;
    2. Act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law of any country;
    3. Act in good faith for the best interest of the process;
    4. Exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances;
    5. Not give preferential treatment to anyone or any interest in any official manner related to TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs;
    6. Not solicit or accept significant gifts, hospitality or other benefits from persons, groups or organizations having or likely to have dealings with TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs;
    7. Not accept transfers of economic benefit, other than incidental gifts, customary hospitality or other benefits of nominal value, unless the transfer is pursuant to an enforceable contract or property right of the member;
    8. Not represent or assist any outside interest in dealings before TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs;
    9. Not knowingly take advantage of, or benefit from, information that is obtained in the course of their duties and responsibilities as a member of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs, and that is not generally available to the public; and
    10. Not act, after their term of office as members of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs in such a manner as to take improper advantage of their previous office.
  2. To avoid the possibility or appearance that members of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs might receive preferential treatment, members shall not seek preferential treatment for themselves or third parties or act as paid intermediaries for third parties in dealings with TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs."

 

H. Conflict of Interest and Disclosure guidelines for the TEAP, TOCs and TSBs

1. What is the purpose of the guidelines on Conflict of Interest and Disclosure?

TOR 6.2-6.7 

  1. "
    The overall purpose of these Guidelines is to protect the legitimacy, integrity, trust, and credibility of the TEAP, TOCS and TSBs and of those directly involved in the preparation of reports and activities.
  2. The role of the TEAP, TOCs and TSBs demands that they pay special attention to issues of independence and bias in order to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, their products and processes. It is essential that the work of TEAP and its TOCs and TSBs is not compromised by any conflict of interest.
  3. Written agreement to comply with these Guidelines is a condition for service as a Member.
  4. These Guidelines are to enhance public confidence in the process, while encouraging experienced and competent persons to serve on the TEAP, TOC and/or TSB, by:
    1. Establishing clear guidance with respect to disclosure and conflict of interest while serving as a Member;
    2. Minimizing the possibility of conflicts of interest arising with respect to Members, and by providing for the resolution of such conflicts, in the public interest, should they arise; and
    3. Finding the balance between the needs:
      1. To identify the appropriate disclosure requirements, and
      2. To ensure the integrity of the TEAP process.
  5. These Guidelines are principle-based and do not provide an exhaustive list of criteria for the identification of conflicts.
  6. TEAP, the TOCS, the TSBs and their members should not be in a situation that could lead a reasonable person to question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, their work because of the existence of a conflict of interest."

2. What are the Disclosure procedures?

TOR 6.8-6.11 

  1. "
    Members are to disclose annually any potential conflicts of interest. They must also disclose the source of any funding for their participation in the work of the TEAP, TOC and/or TSB. An illustrative list of other interests that should be disclosed is provided in Annex A to these Guidelines.
  2. Members are to disclose any material change to previously submitted information within 30 days of any such change.
  3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 8 and 9, a member may decline to disclose information related to activities, interests and funding where its disclosure would adversely and materially affect:
    1. Defense, national security or imminent public safety;
    2. The course of justice in prospective or current court cases;
    3. The ability to assign future intellectual property rights; or
    4. The confidentiality of commercial, government, or industrial information.
  4. Members who decline to disclose information under paragraph 10 must declare that they are doing so in their disclosure of interest under paragraphs 8 or 9 and must be completely excluded from discussions and decisions on related topics."

3. What is a conflict of interest?

TOR 6.1 (a)

  1. "
    For the purposes of these Guidelines:
    1. Conflict of interest” means any current interest of a member, or of that member’s personal partner or dependant which, in the opinion of a reasonable person does or appears to:
      1. Significantly impair that individual’s objectivity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities for TEAP, the TOC or the TSB; or
      2. Create an unfair advantage for any person or organization;"

 

 

 

 

 

4. What are the Conflict of Interest procedures?

TOR 6.12-6.19

  1. "
    A member’s strong opinion (sometimes referred to as bias), or particular perspective, regarding a particular issue or set of issues does not create a conflict of interest. It is expected that the TEAP, TOCs and TSBs will include members with different perspectives and affiliations, which should be balanced so far as possible.
  2. These Guidelines apply only to current conflicts of interest. They do not apply to past interests that have expired, no longer exist and cannot reasonably affect current assessment. Nor do they apply to possible interests that may arise in the future but that do not currently exist, as such interests are inherently speculative and uncertain. For example, a pending application for a particular job is a current interest, but the mere possibility that one might apply for such a job in the future is not a conflict of interest.

Procedures

  1. All of the bodies involved in advising on and deciding conflict of interest issues under these Guidelines should consult the relevant member where the body has concerns about a potential conflict of interest and/or where it requires clarification of any matters arising out of a member’s disclosure. Such bodies should ensure that the relevant individuals and, where appropriate, the nominating Party, have an opportunity to discuss any concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
  2. In the event that an issue regarding a potential conflict of interest arises, the relevant member and co-chairs should attempt to resolve the issue through consultations, including consultations with the advisory body. If the consultations reach an impasse, TEAP could request the Executive Secretary to select an outside mediator to assist in resolving the matter. The mediator should not be a member and should not otherwise have any current affiliation with the relevant individuals, bodies or issues.
  3. At any point, the conflict resolution advisory body may be consulted by members or potential members regarding issues related to:
    1. Member disclosures;
    2. Potential conflicts of interest or other ethics issues; or
    3. Potential recusal of members.
  4. The conflict resolution advisory body must promptly inform a member if it has been asked to advise on an issue regarding the member. Any information provided to and any advice provided by the conflict resolution advisory body will be considered confidential and will not be used for any purpose other than consideration of conflict of interest issues under these Guidelines without the express consent of the individual providing the information or requesting the advice, as appropriate.
  5. If an issue under these Guidelines cannot be resolved through the procedures in paragraphs 14 through 17:
    1. A TEAP member, including TEAP and TOC co-chairs, may be recused from a defined area of work only by a three-fourths majority of TEAP (excluding the individual whose recusal is at issue).
    2. A TOC or TSB member, excluding TEAP and TOC co-chairs, may be recused from a defined area of work by the co-chairs of the relevant TOC or, upon appeal, by a three-fourths majority of TEAP.
  6. In the event of the procedure under the previous paragraph taking place, the Member whose recusal is at issue may not participate. In the event that the matter is brought to the TEAP consistent with paragraph 18, the Member whose recusal is under discussion, should be excluded from those discussions."

5. What types of interests should be disclosed?

Annex to the terms of reference

"The following is an illustrative list of the types of interests that should be disclosed:

  1. A current proprietary interest of a member or his/her personal partner or dependent in a substance, technology or process (e.g., ownership of a patent) to be considered by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel or any of its technical options committees or temporary subsidiary bodies;
  2. A current financial interest of a member or his/her personal partner or dependent, e.g., shares or bonds in an entity with an interest in the subject matter of the meeting or work (but not shareholdings through general mutual funds or similar arrangements where the expert has no control over the selection of shares);
  3. A current employment, consultancy, directorship or other position held by a Member or his/her personal partner or dependent, whether or not paid, in any entity which has an interest in the subject matter of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. This element of disclosure also includes paid consultancy efforts performed on behalf of an implementing agency to assist developing countries to adopt alternatives;
  4. The provision of advice on significant issues to a government with respect to its implementation of the Montreal Protocol or engaging in the development of significant policy positions of a government for a Montreal Protocol meeting.

Performance of any paid research activities or receipt of any fellowships or grants for work related to a proposed use of an ozone-depleting substance or an alternative to a proposed use of an ozone depleting substance;"

6. What is recusal?

TOR 6.1 (c)

  1. "
    For the purposes of these Guidelines:
    1. (c)“Recusal” means that a member does not participate in particular elements of TEAP, TOC or TSB work because of a conflict of interest;"

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

7. What are the recusal procedures?

TOR 6.20-6.21

  1. "
    When a conflict of interest is determined to exist with respect to a particular Member, the Member should, depending on what is appropriate in the circumstances, be:
    1. Excluded from decision-making and discussions related to a defined area of work;
    2. Excluded from decision-making but may participate in discussions related to a defined area of work; or
    3. Excluded from participation in the matter in any other manner deemed appropriate.
  2. A Member who is recused completely or partially from an area of work may nevertheless answer questions with respect to that work at the request of the TEAP, TOC or TSB."

 

 

 

 

8. How does an appointed “Conflict resolution advisory body” operate?

TOR 6.22 

"The conflict resolution advisory body is not envisioned as a body that will meet on any regular basis but will come together, physically or virtually, as needed to provide advice to members or potential members and assist with resolving issues. It shall consist of Co-Chairs of the Open-Ended Working Group and the President of the Bureau of the Meeting of the Parties, with the Ozone Secretariat providing logistical, technical legal and administrative support and advice to the body. No additional travel support or other financial support will be provided to members serving on the body."

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART II. TEAP reporting and associated processes

A. Reports by the TEAP and its subsidiary bodies

1. What types of reports are produced by the TEAP and its subsidiary bodies?

The reports produced by the TEAP may be grouped into three broad categories:

  1. Technical progress updates submitted annually to the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG);
  2. Thematic reports on specific issues as requested by parties in relevant decisions, submitted to the OEWG or the MOP annually, periodically or by a set time;
  3. Periodic assessments prepared typically every three, four or five years.

2. How can the TEAP reports can be accessed?

The TEAP reports can be found on the Ozone Secretariat website, both on the TEAP portal and the portal of the meetings those reports are considered at. An interactive tool on TEAP reports expected to be produced until 2030, is also available on the Secretariat’s website.

 

B. Technical progress updates

1. What are the technical progress updates?

In decision IV/13, the TEAP was requested to report annually to the OEWG on technical progress in reducing the use and emissions of controlled substances, and assess the use of alternatives, particularly their direct and indirect global-warming effects. In accordance with that decision, each year, TEAP issues an annual progress report.

 

2. What kind of issues are addressed in the annual TEAP progress report?

Typically, the annual TEAP progress reports include:

  • Progress reports by the TOCs;
  • Response to parties’ requests included in various decisions (if TEAP does not deem appropriate to present its response in separate reports);
  • Any significant developments in response to decision IV/13 and several subsequent decisions;
  • Organizational matters including information on TEAP membership and current and needed expertise; and
  • Any other matters TEAP wishes to bring to the attention of the parties.

3. When does the TEAP progress report becomes available to the parties?

The TEAP progress report is normally finalized in May or June each year, together with other additional reports requested by parties for the consideration of the OEWG, which normally meets in June or July each year. The Secretariat posts the report both on the TEAP portal and the portal of the OEWG meeting. If issues addressed in the progress report are due for consideration at the annual MOP towards the end of the year, the progress report is also posted on the portal of that meeting.

 

C. Thematic reports

1. What are the thematic reports?

Thematic reports may be annual, periodic or time-specific and their preparation depends on requests received by parties or conditions set out by the parties. Such reporting may be included in the annual TEAP progress reports or be prepared separately, if TEAP deems appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. What are the issues considered under the thematic reports?

The issues considered under the thematic reports pertain normally to:

  1. Assessments of nominations put forward by the parties for:
    • Critical use exemptions of methyl bromide
    • Essential use exemptions of controlled substances
    • Emergency use authorization of controlled substances
  2. Periodic reports requested by parties in various decisions on specific issues, such as on:
    • Process agent uses
    • Laboratory and analytical applications
    • Destruction technologies
    • N-propyl bromide
    • Possible new substances
  3. Reports in response to Parties’ ad-hoc requests, such as on:

To address these issues, the TEAP engages the relevant TOCs or sets up TSBs to prepare its reports which are then presented to the parties. Consideration of such issues often results in the adoption of subsequent decisions.

 

 

3. What are the processes followed in addressing issues under the thematic reports

The processes involved in dealing with the above issues can be relatively simple or rigorous. A process may be perceived as simple when the TEAP, in coordination with its relevant TOCs and possible TSBs, prepares its report and presents its findings to the parties, often taking into account information received from parties.

However, some processes, such as those involved in TEAP’s evaluation of critical and essential uses of ozone-depleting substances, may be rigorous as there are certain procedures that must be followed both by Parties and the TEAP, elaborated in several decisions adopted over time and pertinent handbooks.

  1. Assessments of parties’ critical or essential use nominations
    1. Critical use exemptions of methyl bromide
    2. Essential use exemptions of controlled substances
    3. Emergency use authorizations 
  2. Periodic reports
    1. Process agent uses
    2. Laboratory and analytical applications
    3. Destruction technologies
    4. N-propyl bromide
    5. Possible new substances
    6. HFCs not listed as controlled substances in Annex F to the Protocol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a) Assessments of parties’ critical or essential use nominations

  1. Critical use exemptions of methyl bromide
  2. Essential use exemptions of controlled substances
  3. Emergency use authorizations 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i) Critical use exemptions of methyl bromide

After phasing-out production and consumption of methyl bromide in controlled uses, parties may put forward annual nominations in future years for applications that are termed to be “critical” under the Montreal Protocol.

A use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the nominating party determines that:

  1. The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and
  2. There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.

The deadline for submission of critical-use nominations of methyl bromide for future years by individual parties to the Secretariat is 24 January each year for the parties’ consideration in the same year.

Critical use nominations of methyl bromide are reviewed by the Panel’s Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) based on criteria and procedures adopted by parties in relevant decisions. The review and initial recommendations by the MBTOC are published annually in a separate report issued normally in May each year for the consideration of the OEWG held usually in June-July each year. Based on further feedback received by the nominating parties, the MBTOC prepares a subsequent report including its final recommendations for the consideration of the MOP at the end of each year. This process normally results in a MOP decision authorizing agreed critical-use exemptions (CUEs) to nominating parties.

The nomination process for critical use exemptions of methyl bromide is described thoroughly in the Handbook on Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide (version 6), available on the website of the Ozone Secretariat along with associated submission forms. Parties are recommended to use that Handbook when preparing and processing their critical-use nominations (CUNs).

 

 

 

(ii) Essential use exemptions of controlled substances

After phasing out production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances other than methyl bromide, i.e. CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and hydrobromofluorocarbons, parties may put forward nominations for exemption of amounts of ODS for uses that are decided by the MOP to be “essential” and satisfy agreed essential use criteria.

According to decision IV/25 on essential uses for ozone-depleting substances, a controlled substance should qualify as “essential” only if:

  1. It is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects); and
  2. There are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health.

The deadline for submission of essential-use nominations of ozone-depleting substances by individual parties to the Secretariat is 31 January each year for the parties’ consideration in the same year.

Essential use nominations are reviewed by the Panel’s appropriate TOC relevant to the application requiring it, based on criteria and procedures adopted by parties in relevant decisions. The review by the TOCs and recommendations are presented to the parties for their consideration. This process normally results in a MOP decision authorizing agreed essential-use exemptions (EUEs) to nominating parties.

The nomination process for essential use exemptions is described in detail in the 2009 Handbook on Essential Use Nominations available at the website of the Ozone Secretariat along with associated submission forms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(iii) Emergency use authorizations

The procedure for nomination of and exemption of critical and essential uses lasts nearly a year: normally, exemptions for nominations received by 24 and 31 January, respectively, will be decided by the Parties at their annual meeting of that year and nominations received after the deadline will be decided the next year.

The parties allow derogations from these procedures to cover emergencies: specifically, there may be emergency authorization of methyl bromide use (see decision IX/7), emergency authorization of essential uses (see decision VIII/9, para. 10) and emergency transfer of essential uses (see Decision IX/20).

Parties’ submissions for emergency uses are handled by the appropriate TOC of the Panel relevant to the application requiring it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) Periodic reports

  1. Process agent uses
  2. Laboratory and analytical applications
  3. Destruction technologies
  4. N-propyl bromide
  5. Possible new substances
  6. HFCs not listed as controlled substances in Annex F to the Protocol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i) Process agent uses

A number of ozone-depleting substances are used in chemical/industrial applications as process agents. In 1998, the MOP adopted decision X/14 which stipulated that, provided certain conditions are met, quantities of controlled substances produced or imported for the purpose of being used as process agents in plants and installations in operation before 1 January 1999 should not be taken into account in the calculation of production and consumption under the Montreal Protocol from 1 January 2002 onwards.

The list of authorized uses of ozone-depleting substances as process agents and associated parties were first set out in table A of decision X/14, along with the maximum make-up (or consumption) and emissions set out in table B of that decision. Those tables have been revised a number of times by the MOP over the years in the light of the TEAP’s advice. The relevant decisions can be accessed from the Secretariat’s decisions portal.

Process agent uses, availability of alternatives, and emission reduction efforts and technologies have been reviewed regularly by the MCTOC, taking into account the data and information provided by parties with current or intended process agent uses. In decision XXXI/6, para. 3, the TEAP was requested to report in its quadrennial reports on any progress made by parties in reducing their use and emissions of controlled substances as process agents and on any new alternatives to such uses, including new production processes and emissions-reduction techniques, on the understanding that should new compelling information become available, that information should be reported in its annual progress report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ii) Laboratory and analytical applications

The amounts of controlled substances produced or used for laboratory and analytical uses (LAUs) by parties are included in their annual data reports under Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol. The use of ozone-depleting substances in a number of laboratory and analytical applications is considered to be essential, as reflected in Decision VI/9, which authorized an essential use exemption for LAUs. Conditions for LAUs were specified in Annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties. This exemption is referred to as “the global exemption”, and although it was initially for two years it has been repeatedly extended by the MOP. In decision XXXI/5, adopted by the 31st MOP in 2019, the global exemption was extended indefinitely, without prejudice to the parties deciding to review the exemption at a future meeting.

In 1995, the 7th MOP adopted in decision VII/11 a non-exhaustive illustrative list of categories and examples of laboratory uses, as specified in Annex IV of the meeting report. A number of decisions have extended and modified the global laboratory and analytical use exemption, excluded specific uses from the global exemption, or requested the TEAP to report on developments in alternatives to the use of controlled substances. In response to paragraph 3 of decision XXXI/5, the Secretariat has made available to the parties, through its website, the consolidated indicative list of laboratory and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances that are globally exempted and the list of uses that the parties have agreed are no longer exempted.

Uses that are no longer exempted as part of the global exemption might still be authorized by the MOP for an essential use exemption.

Assessment of LAUs is undertaken by the MCTOC, also in consultation with other relevant TOCs, as appropriate.

In 2011, in paragraph 9 of decision XXIII/6 the TEAP was requested to continue its work in reviewing international standards that mandate the use of ozone-depleting substances and to work with the organizations that promulgate such standards to include non-ozone-depleting substances and procedures as applicable. Information on this matter is included in the TEAP progress reports or in reports addressing specifically LAUs.

In accordance with paragraph 7 of decision XXXI/5, from 2020 onwards the TEAP is requested to report in its quadrennial report on any progress made by parties in reducing their production and consumption of ozone depleting substances for laboratory and analytical uses, on any new alternatives to those uses, and on laboratory standards that can be performed without such substances, on the understanding that, should new compelling information become available, including opportunities for significant reductions in production and consumption, that information should be reported in its annual progress report.

 

 

(iii) Destruction technologies

Under the Montreal Protocol parties report annually on destruction of controlled substances as part of their reporting under Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol. Parties are also invited to provide the amount of controlled substances destroyed by technologies approved by the Parties and thereby excluded from the definition of “production” (see Article 1(5) of the Protocol). As such that amount is not reflected in a party’s calculated levels of production and consumption, and is treated accordingly for the purposes of reporting under Article 7 of the Protocol.

Moreover, the Kigali Amendment has added to the Montreal Protocol further obligations with respect to the destruction of hydrofluorocarbons using technology approved by the parties (see Article 2J (6) and (7) of the Protocol).

Since its first meeting, the MOP has periodically requested the TEAP to assess and advise on destruction technologies, and established ancillary and related procedures. These decisions can be found on the Secretariat’s decision portal. On the basis of such assessments, the MOP has adopted a number of decisions to approve destruction technologies. The most recent list of destruction processes was approved in decision XXX/6 and is contained in Annex II to the report of the 30th MOP.

In decision XXX/15, para. 5, the MOP requested the TEAP to provide a review of destruction technologies if new compelling information becomes available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(iv) N-propyl bromide

In 2001, the 13th MOP noted in decision XIII/7 the TEAP report that n-PB was being marketed aggressively and requested parties to inform industry and users about the concerns surrounding the use and emissions of n-PB and the potential threat that these might pose to the ozone layer. Parties were also requested to urge industry and users to consider limiting the use of n-PB to applications where more economically feasible and environmentally friendly alternatives were not available, and to urge them also to take care to minimize exposure and emissions during use and disposal.

In decision XXX/15, para. 6, the TEAP is requested to report on n-PB only if new compelling information is available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(v) Possible new substances

Decision IX/24 provides for any party to bring to the attention of the Secretariat the existence of new substances which it believes have the potential to deplete the ozone layer and have the likelihood of substantial production, but which are not listed as controlled substances under Article 2.

Upon receipt of such a submission, the Secretariat forwards the information to the SAP and the TEAP. The SAP assesses the ozone-depleting potential of any new substances of which it becomes aware and passes that assessment to the TEAP. The TEAP report on the matter shall include an evaluation of the extent of use or potential use of each substance and if necessary the potential alternatives, and shall make recommendations on actions which the Parties might wish to consider. Both SAP and TEAP should report their findings to the next ordinary MOP.

In decision XXX/15, para. 6, the TEAP is requested to provide information to the parties on possible new substances only if any previously unreported substances are identified that may have a likelihood of substantial production.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(vi) HFCs not listed as controlled substances in Annex F to the Protocol

In decision XXIX/12, the MOP acknowledged that the substances listed in Annex F to the Protocol include those HFCs that are at present commercially in use. It noted, however, that there are other HFCs not listed in Annex F to the Protocol, which at present have minimal or no known production or consumption, which have global warming potential (GWP) no less than the lowest global warming potential of the hydrofluorocarbons listed in Annex F.

In light of the above, the TEAP and the other Assessment Panels were requested to provide in their quadrennial assessment reports to be presented to the MOP in 2023, and every four years thereafter, information on the consumption and production of HFCs not listed in Annex F of the Protocol which have GWP no less than the lowest GWP of the HFCs listed in Annex F. It was further noted that this is for information purposes only, given that the substances referred to in the present paragraph are not included in Annex F.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D. Periodic assessments

1. What are the periodic assessments?

Periodic assessments are typically prepared by the TEAP every three, four or five years, assessing particular issues requested by parties in relevant decisions.

 

2. What kind of periodic assessments does the TEAP carry out?

The periodic assessments currently carried out by the TEAP comprise:

  1. Studies on the triennial replenishments of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, prepared every three years in response to decisions setting out the terms of reference of such studies (e.g., decision XXXI/1);
  2. Quadrennial assessments and corresponding synthesis reports, prepared every four years pursuant to Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol and according to the terms of reference set out in a relevant decision (e.g., decision XXXI/2);
  3. Assessments related to the implementation of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), set out in decision XXVIII/2.

3. What are the processes involved in the periodic assessments?

  1. Studies on the triennial replenishments of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal protocol
  2. Quadrennial Assessments and Synthesis Reports
  3. Assessments on the phase-down of HFCs

(a) Studies on the triennial replenishments of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal protocol

The Financial Mechanism of the Montreal Protocol was created by the London Amendment to the Protocol in 1990. Its purpose is to provide financial and technical assistance to Article 5 parties to enable their compliance with the control measures set out in the Protocol. The mechanism includes the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (MLF).

The MLF was established pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol by decision II/8 in order to meet, inter alia, the agreed incremental costs (see Annex VIII to the report of the Fourth MOP) of phasing out ozone-depleting substances by Article 5 parties. The Fund is financed by contributions from non-Article 5 parties although contributions by other countries are encouraged.

The MLF operates with three-year funding cycles. Prior to each funding cycle, there is a replenishment of the Fund.

In the year before the last year of each funding cycle, the parties set out in a decision (e.g., decision XXXI/1) the terms of reference for a study designed to estimate the funds necessary to enable Article 5 parties to achieve compliance during the forthcoming replenishment period. This study is normally entrusted to the TEAP, which customarily establishes a task force to prepare the study for the parties’ consideration.

Thus, the terms of reference for a TEAP study on the replenishment of the MLF are decided by the parties every three years, and may vary but, as a general rule, the parties will request the TEAP to:

    • Prepare a report to be submitted through the next OEWG to the MOP following the replenishment decision;
    • Take into account a number of issues, including the need to allocate resources to enable all Article 5 parties to achieve compliance with the Protocol;
    • Consult widely;
    • Strive to complete their report in good time to enable its distribution to all parties before the relevant OEWG meeting;
    • Provide indicative figures for the next two replenishment periods.

The TEAP (task force) report will generally be finalized by May or June and considered by the OEWG. The OEWG discussions will usually result in the TEAP being requested to assess a compilation of issues in its final report for the MOP. The MOP that considers that report will negotiate and adopt a decision on replenishment (e.g., decision XXIX/1) and an associated decision on the fixed exchange rate mechanism (e.g., decision XXIX/2).

(b) Quadrennial Assessment and Synthesis Reports

Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol provides for the parties to assess, at least every four years, the control measures provided for in the Protocol. This task is entrusted to all three assessment panels by a decision every four years (e.g., decision XXXI/2).

By such a decision all three Panels are mandated to prepare their next quadrennial assessments. The decision identifies specific topics to be covered, potential areas of focus, and requests identification of any significant developments which could be of importance to the parties. This decision is typically adopted in the same year the quadrennial assessment reports are presented to the parties.

Within the TEAP, the TOCs write their contributions to the assessment report separately before the entire TEAP Quadrennial Assessment Report is issued.

In the year following the finalization of Quadrenial Assessment reports, the TEAP co-chairs, in consultation with the TEAP members, work with the co-chairs of the other Assessment Panels (SAP and EEAP) and compile a synthesis report, summarizing the key messages of all three Panels’ quadrennial reports for the parties’ consideration in that year.

(c) Assessments on the phase-down of HFCs

The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, adopted by the 28th MOP in October 2016 through decision XXVIII/1, sets out control measures for the phase down of HFCs. Under the Amendment, parties are required to gradually reduce the production and consumption of HFCs by 80-85 per cent by the late 2040s. It is therefore of utmost importance for parties to resort to alternatives to HFCs in order to achieve the objectives of the amendment.

Decision XXVIII/2 that relates to the Kigali Amendment, also adopted by the 28th MOP, provides for two periodic reviews under paragraphs 4 and 32-33, namely:

  1. Review of alternatives to HFCs (decision XXVIII/2, para. 4)

    The TEAP is requested to conduct periodic reviews of alternatives to HFCs, using the criteria set out in paragraph 1 (a) of decision XXVI/9, and to provide technological and economic assessments of the latest available and emerging alternatives to HFCs. These reviews are to be provided in 2022 and every five years thereafter.

  2. Review of alternatives in high ambient temperatures (decision XXVIII/2, paras. 32-33)

    The TEAP and a TSB that includes outside experts on high ambient temperatures are requested to assess the suitability of HFC alternatives for use where suitable alternatives do not exist. That assessment is to be based on criteria that are to be agreed by the parties, that will include, but not be limited to, the criteria listed in paragraph 1 (a) of decision XXVI/9.

    The panel and its TSB are also to recommend sub-sectors to be added to or removed from appendix I of decision XXVIII/2, which lists sub-sectors for which the exemption for high-ambient-temperature parties applies, and report this information to the MOP.

    This assessment will take place periodically starting four years from the HFC freeze date and every four years thereafter. As the first HFC freeze date is in 2024 (for Article 5 parties in Group 1), the first such review is expected to be conducted in 2028.