A.       Destruction technologies for controlled substances (decision XXIX/4)

1. Ms. Helen Tope, co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel task force on destruction technologies, introduced the Panel’s response to decision XXIX/4 on destruction technologies for controlled substances. She summarized the relevant decision, noting that it had requested the Panel to undertake an assessment of destruction technologies approved under decision XXIII/12 to confirm their applicability to HFCs, and any other technology for possible inclusion in the list of approved destruction technologies. She recalled that the Panel had established a task force of experts to address the decision. She summarized a timeline and the task force reports issued during 2018, including an initial report in April, a supplemental report in May, a request to the Panel to provide additional information at the fortieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, an addendum report in September, and additional information provided after the report was published, which was included in the findings of the presentation. She provided an overview of the addendum report, which presented the task force’s assessment of additional information provided by a number of parties, and information on energy consumption for a destruction technology with high energy intensity. She summarized the findings of the assessment of new information on a technology for possible inclusion in the list of approved destruction technologies, namely the thermal decay of methyl bromide. Since the release of the supplemental report, modifications had been made to the technology developed. New analytical measurements were provided for carbon monoxide emissions only, which now met the performance criteria. The operating temperature remained in the range where dioxins/furans could still be formed. Thermal decay of methyl bromide remained recommended as high potential by the task force for the destruction of methyl bromide but not recommended for approval because of the absence of brominated dioxin/furan measurements. She then summarized the additional new information provided for technologies for their applicability to HFC destruction. Ms. Tope then noted that the task force had taken an objective approach to its assessment to ensure internal consistency with previous assessments. Although the task force had carried out a comprehensive data compilation, in some cases data, providing examples including the destruction of mixed waste streams, had not been available for assessment: cases when surrogate chemicals or criteria were required by some parties, technologies that are no longer in operation and circumstances where emissions testing has not been feasible. Lastly, Ms. Tope noted that parties might wish to consider those factors when deciding whether to approve technologies or not, based on the balance of available information.
2. Ms. Helen Walter-Terrinoni, co-chair of the Panel’s task force on destruction technologies, provided additional considerations regarding particulate and carbon monoxide emissions when contaminant oils were absent. She noted that for conversion technologies and reactor cracking, if oil contaminants were removed, particulate emissions might meet the particulate performance criterion for HFC destruction. For cement kilns, particulate and some other emissions were higher than performance criteria. The 2002 task force on destruction technologies had noted typically high emissions, but had also noted that the addition of ozone-depleting substances or HFCs would probably have few, if any, additional effects. Carbon monoxide was formed in the thermal destruction of halocarbons through incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels and oils in the presence of oxygen. Without oxygen, carbon monoxide could not be formed, and analysis was unnecessary.
3. As had been requested by the Open-ended Working Group at its fortieth meeting, Ms. Walter‑Terrinoni described the holistic greenhouse gas impacts and benefits of destroying HFCs, noting that there was significant greenhouse gas benefit because of the high GWP of HFCs and the negligible impact of the operation of destruction facilities. She provided an example of the most energy intensive group of technologies (plasma arc) and explained that the benefit was greater for less energy-intensive processes. She noted that the task force evaluated more carbon intensity energy production and the impact had been found to be negligible. In summary she said that the impact from energy consumption associated with operating any destruction technology was negligible compared with the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to HFC destruction. Lastly, Ms. Walter-Terrinoni presented the available data and the task force’s recommendations to the parties, highlighting the changes made in the addendum to the supplementary report.

           B.       Future availability of halons and their alternatives

1. Mr. Daniel Verdonik, co-chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee, gave a presentation on the Panel’s response to decision XXIX/8 on the future availability of halons and their alternatives. The decision requested the Panel, through its Halons Technical Options Committee, to continue to liaise with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on the development and implementation of alternatives to halons, to explore the possibility of forming a joint working group with ICAO to develop and thereafter carry out a study to determine the current and projected future quantities of halons installed in civil aviation fire protection systems, the associated uses and releases of halons from those systems and any potential courses of action that civil aviation could take to reduce those uses and releases, and to submit a report on the work of the joint working group before the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties and, importantly, the fortieth session of the ICAO Assembly in September 2019 for consideration and potential further action.
2. Mr. Verdonik said that ICAO, in coordination with the HTOC co-chairs, had hosted a meeting with interested parties in March 2018. At that meeting, ICAO had decided to establish an informal working group to provide the information requested in the decision. He explained that the informal working group currently consisted of representatives from several of the airframe manufacturers, both of the civil aviation fire protection cylinder manufacturers in the United States, two important civil aviation non-governmental organizations, the ICAO secretariat and several members of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, who were also the authors of the report on the Panel’s response to decision XXIX/8. The working group had decided that ICAO would send out a survey it had developed as an ICAO State letter. The purpose of that survey was to provide a more accurate estimate of annual halon 1301 emissions from civil aviation.
3. The questionnaire or survey had been designed to be short and simple in order to maximize the number of respondents. It included contact information and confirmation that the respondents performed halon 1301 servicing of civil aviation bottles. There were two questions to determine the amount of halon needed to be replaced in the bottles they received for servicing (i.e., the amount that was discharged or emitted from the bottles during aircraft operations) and four additional questions to get a sense of the halon 1301 market and availability. The informal working group members from servicing companies thought it likely that most, if not all, companies would track or log both the amount of halon recovered from the bottles they received as the recycling or reclaiming would incur a cost to the company, and the amount of recycled or reclaimed halon put back into the same bottles as that would be charged to the customer. He also explained that the ICAO State letter was provided to national civil aviation authorities, who would then send the letters to the companies in their country that were identified by ICAO as providing servicing of civil aviation halon 1301 bottles.
4. A total of 53 surveys had been returned, of which 33 confirmed servicing aviation halon bottles but only 21 provided data and only 10 provided data on the questions intended to determine emissions. The 10 responses with data on the difference between the amount recovered versus the amount filled i.e., the amount emitted, ranged from 4 per cent to 50 per cent with an average of 14 per cent. While the data set was too limited to determine a more accurate emission rate, it did provide additional anecdotal information that civil aviation emissions could be substantially higher than the 2–3 per cent annual average overall emission rate used by the Halons Technical Options Committee to estimate global emissions. That result also supported other anecdotal information available to the Committee. The informal working group also recognized that a number of major service companies had not responded to the survey and that ICAO was following up with those companies to try to get additional data.
5. Mr. Verdonik reported on the update to the amount of halon 1301 that could be available to support civil aviation and other long-term uses, such as those relating to oil and gas production facilities and military and nuclear power plants. He explained that the Halons Technical Options Committee estimated the global bank or inventory of halon 1301 to be 37,500 metric tonnes at the end of 2018, but that not all of that amount would be available to civil aviation and other long-term users. The Committee estimated that of the 37,500 metric tonnes, about 12,500 could become available to support all of the long-term uses. To estimate the run-out date, eight scenarios had been developed to look at two assumed amounts of available halon (12,500 +/- 10 per cent) and four emissions scenarios, which had changed civil aviation emissions from a low of 2–3 per cent to a high of 15 per cent to bound the potential aviation emissions. The most reasonable worst-case scenario of the lowest halon amount available and the highest emission rates predicted that halon 1301 would run out for civil aviation and other long-term uses in 2032, while the best-case scenario predicted a run-out date of 2054.
6. The next steps for the Committee would be to continue to work with ICAO to refine emission estimates as much as possible from any additional survey data that came in and to work with ICAO to develop a working paper for the upcoming fortieth session of the ICAO General Assembly. The working paper would address potential actions for ICAO and/or the civil aviation industry to take to obtain additional data for estimating emissions and would recommend initiatives that civil aviation could take to reduce emissions.
7. In summary, Mr. Verdonik cautioned that while the global amount of halon 1301 used in the analysis was based on the Halons Technical Options Committee model, emissions derived from atmospheric measurements (while within the uncertainty range) were higher than the Committee’s estimates. It was therefore possible that the global bank of halon 1301 could be much smaller than the amount used in the analysis, by as much as 9,000 metric tonnes. He noted that the civil aviation emission rate was still uncertain but was a major driving force in overall emissions and hence the remaining bank. In all eight scenarios, a 15 per cent civil aviation emission rate would deplete the available bank in the early 2030s, which further supported the need to have better estimates of the civil aviation actual emission rate.
8. In closing, he said that based on run-out dates between 2032 and 2054 and aircraft lifetimes of up to 40 years, it was almost certain that civil aviation was producing aircraft now that could not be sustained with the available supplies of halon 1301.

          C.       Critical-use nominations for methyl bromide

1. On behalf of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the co-chairs of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, Ms. Marta Pizano and Mr. Ian Porter, presented an overview of the trends and outcomes for the critical-use nominations submitted in 2018 for use in 2019 and 2020.
2. Ms. Pizano described the outcomes of the assessment of critical-use nominations submitted in 2018, noting that four countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada and South Africa) had applied for 147.241 tonnes of methyl bromide under critical use in six sectors. After the interim assessment presented at the thirty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, three parties had requested re-assessment of their critical-use nominations (4 in total).
3. She provided an overview of the two non-Article 5 final recommendations for pre-plant use of methyl bromide. The Australian and Canadian strawberry runner nominations had found difficulties in implementing alternatives, mainly due to regulatory issues and high phytosanitary requirements for the runners.
4. For the Australian strawberry runners the full amount nominated by the party of 28.98 tonnes was recommended, as the party had provided further information showing progress with chemical and non‑chemical alternatives, but had explained that those would not be available before 2020 as results needed acceptance by the certification body (Victorian Strawberry Industry Certification Authority – VSICA). The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee recognized that the party had provided a transition plan for phasing out methyl bromide, based on methyl iodide, which showed that if registration and availability was achieved by 2021, then that year the nomination amount would be reduced by 50 per cent and critical-use nomination requests would cease entirely in 2022.
5. For methyl bromide use on Canadian strawberry runners in 2019, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee recommended the full amount of 5.261 tonnes. Further information from the party after the meeting of the Open-ended Working Group had justified that regulations unique to Prince Edward Island prohibited the use of all feasible chemical fumigant options, and that soilless culture was the only option presently suitable for a proportion of the nomination. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee accepted that soilless culture could not be adopted further under the present circumstances.
6. Mr. Porter then showed the trends in amounts of methyl bromide requested in nominations from five Article 5 parties since 2015 and that they had generally declined. He indicated that South Africa had reduced its nomination since the fortieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group by 5.5 tonnes. Mexico and China were no longer requesting critical-use nominations, but the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee was unable to determine if those parties had phased out methyl bromide or were using stocks, since there was no requirement for parties to report stocks gathered before 2015.
7. Recommendations for critical-use nominations requested by Argentina for tomatoes and strawberries in 2019 remained unchanged as they were accepted by the party. For strawberries, the nomination was reduced based on the uptake of barrier films for the third year of a three-year adoption period, which allowed for reduced use of methyl bromide. For tomatoes, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee accepted that alternatives for controlling Nacobbus (e.g., resistant rootstock for grafting) were not yet available. Both nominations from Argentina for 2019 (strawberry fruit – 27.1 tonnes, tomatoes – 44.4 tonnes) were reduced by 10 per cent to meet the standard presumptions for methyl bromide dosage rates used with barrier films over a three-year adoption period.
8. Mr. Porter then provided the outcome of the two interim recommendations for pests in commodities and structures for 2019 from South Africa. He explained that both nominations had been reduced by the party since the fortieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, and that further information had been provided. For mills, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee recommended 1.0 tonne, a 33.3 per cent reduction of the 1.5 tonnes nominated. The reduction was based on two fumigations per year for pests in the remaining three mills at 20 g/m³ (the standard presumption) as a transitional measure to allow time for the adoption of alternatives in an integrated pest management system, with possible phase-in of sulfuryl fluoride. For houses, the Committee recommended the full revised amount of 40 tonnes as the party had justified that heat and sulfuryl fluoride could not be adopted for the remaining amount until after 20 Also, there had been an increase in population and the number of houses in dry wood termite infested areas, leading to increased pressure to use methyl bromide.
9. The co-chair then showed the total final recommendation for parties in the 2018 round, amounting to 116.551 tonnes of the 147.241 tonnes nominated by all parties for either 2019 or 20
10. Mr. Porter reported that 24.285 tonnes of stocks were held by parties that were required to report under decision XVI/6 at the end of 2017. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee critical-use exemption recommendations had not been adjusted to account for stocks, and although reported stocks were small, unknown quantities of pre-2015 stocks appeared to exist.
11. The timelines for submission of critical-use nominations in 2019 were shown, as required under decision IX/6, subparagraph 1 (b) (ii).
12. In closing, Mr. Porter highlighted that pre-2015 stocks were being used by some Article 5 parties, and that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee was unclear as to whether parties had effective alternatives for those sectors and, if not, whether diminishing stocks might lead to further requests for critical-use nominations in the future. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee was unable to gather accurate reliable information on the pre-2015 stocks held by Article 5 parties as they were not required to be reported.

1. Response to paragraph 2 of decision XXVI/5 on a global laboratory and analytical use exemption

1. Ms. Helen Tope, co-chair of the Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee, introduced the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s response to paragraph 2 of decision XXVI/5 on laboratory and analytical uses. She thanked Mr. Jianjun Zhang, co-chair of the Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee, who had been instrumental in the development of the Panel’s response but had been unable to attend the meeting. She began by recalling some typical examples of laboratory and analytical uses of controlled substances, and noted that carbon tetrachloride, CFC-113 and 1,1,1-trichloroethane had been the main controlled substances used for that purpose. She summarized the relevant decision, noting that it recalled some of the many previous decisions of parties, eliminating specific uses from the global exemption, and extended the exemption until 31 December 2021, under the conditions set out in an earlier decision, for all controlled substances at that time, except HCFCs. She outlined the paragraph relevant to the Panel’s response, which requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report in 2018 on the development and availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that could be performed without using controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol. She noted that the Panel’s response had been published in September, building on responses to previous decisions developed by the former Chemicals Technical Options Committee. She noted that the response considered available alternatives and potential barriers to their adoption in Article 5 and non-Article 5 parties, and reviewed standards for analytical procedures, within certain constraints such as limited resources. She said that the response was limited to controlled substances already included in the global exemption, although it included information on known laboratory and analytical uses of HCFCs. It did not include Annex F substances. As background to its response, she presented production data reported under Article 7 for laboratory and analytical uses, which was about 150 tonnes globally in 2016, and that carbon tetrachloride was the main controlled substance produced for those uses, more than 99.9 per cent. She said that reported production in 2016 in non-Article 5 parties had decreased to 21 tonnes, and in Article 5 parties had decreased to 130 tonnes. For its assessment of the development and availability of alternatives to laboratory solvent and reagent uses that could be performed without using controlled substances, she noted that many laboratory uses of controlled substances could be phased out, such as solvent and cleaning uses. She summarized that a review of the use of carbon tetrachloride as a solvent in reactions involving N-bromosuccinimide had identified alternatives, and that alternatives were available for methyl bromide used as a methylating agent. As a result, the Panel was recommending that these be excluded from the global essential-use exemption. She summarized the review of standards using controlled substances for laboratory and analytical uses, noting that international standards bodies were continuing to work on the development of new standards methods to replace controlled substances, and that alternatives had replaced controlled substances in a number of standards. She noted some barriers to the adoption of alternatives, with some challenges common to both non-Article 5 and Article 5 parties, where some standards still allowed or required the use of controlled substances despite the availability of alternatives. She indicated that some challenges remained for Article 5 parties only, such as adherence to standards using controlled substances, and the cost and time associated with the development and adoption of alternative analytical procedures and standards. She noted that some standards where the controlled substance was used as a reference chemical were likely to remain for as long as the controlled substance was needed in applications, for enforcement, or for measurements. She presented a table of recommendations to remove specific laboratory and analytical uses from the global exemption for parties’ consideration, at a date to be determined by parties, recalling that any decision taken to remove a use from the global exemption would not prevent a party from nominating a specific use for an essential-use exemption under decision IV/25. She summarized other recommendations relating to parties considering establishing cooperation with standards organizations to facilitate and accelerate the development or revision of standards for the replacement of controlled substances in analytical uses, and parties considering providing more comprehensive data, sharing information on alternatives and the revision of standards, and possible support for the development or revision of standards, and training where needed. She concluded by summarizing other considerations, namely that many standards still required the use of small quantities of controlled substances, and that removal of specific uses on a case-by-case basis from the global exemption created confusion on what was allowable under the exemption, and that monitoring of, and adherence to, specific authorized laboratory and analytical uses of controlled substances might become increasingly challenging as the exclusion list expands, while providing diminishing environmental benefits for about 150 tonnes of controlled substances.

1.        Decision XXIX/10 task force on issues related to energy efficiency while phasing down HFCs

1. Ms. Suely Carvalho, Ms. Bella Maranion, and Mr. Fabio Polonara, co-chairs of the energy efficiency task force, gave a presentation on the updated final report of the task force.
2. Ms. Maranion began by elaborating on the request to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, set out in paragraph 3 of decision XXIX/10, that it prepare a final report for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its fortieth meeting, and thereafter an updated final report to be submitted to the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties taking into consideration the outcome of the workshop organized by the Secretariat in accordance with paragraph 4 of the decision. When the co-chairs had presented the May 2018 report of the task force to the Open-ended Working Group parties at its fortieth meeting, parties had noted that energy efficiency was a broad topic of major importance for the environment, health and economics, with an enormous amount of published literature available. She said that parties had requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its task force to provide information focusing on the specific intersection between the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pumps sector and the phasedown of HFCs. She also noted, as reported by the Executive Secretary of the Multilateral Fund at the present meeting, that the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund was continuing to work on the development of cost guidelines for HFCs. The task force had had less than five months to complete its May 2018 report, relying on previous Panel reports for reference, updated and available research and studies, available methodologies and practical examples. Immediately after the fortieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, the task force had met to begin its work, facing an extremely challenging timeline of four weeks to complete its draft, allowing for subsequent review by the task force and the Panel, and submission to the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties. Ms. Maranion provided the list of the 21 members of the task force and expressed appreciation for their outstanding efforts in producing the updated final report.
3. She noted that the updated report followed the same outline as the May 2018 report, with updated information highlighted in grey throughout. The updated final report included as much as possible the additional guidance provided by parties to the Panel (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/40/7, annex III) and interventions made by parties at the fortieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. Ms. Maranion said that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel looked forward to future opportunities for engaging more fully in specific regions and countries on the topics covered. She also highlighted that Annex A to the report presented further information on additional sectors and technologies; Annex C was new and contained a summary of the workshop on energy efficiency; while Annex D contained the guidance to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel from the relevant contact group at the fortieth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. The table in Annex D also indicated report sections where comments were addressed. Given the limited time allotted for the presentation, Ms. Maranion indicated that the co-chairs would not cover all the updates but would highlight some of the significant new information contained in the updated report.
4. One of the requests to the task force, set out in the additional guidance provided by parties to the Panel (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/40/7, annex III), had been to discuss energy efficiency in the context of the refrigerant transition. Specifically, parties had requested the Panel to reformulate its response to decision XXIX/10 to put it in the context of refrigerant transition and to elaborate in a comprehensive way and provide clear comparison between HCFCs, HFCs and HFC alternatives with respect to performance, safety and costs. Ms. Maranion said that the Kigali Amendment focused primarily on developing a timeline to phase down high-GWP HFCs to avoid their direct contribution of up to 0.5°C of total global warming by 2100. However, the direct benefits of the reduction of high-GWP refrigerants during the phase-down might be offset by the use of less energy-efficient equipment. If more energy-efficient equipment were used, the total reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, both from direct and indirect sources, could as much as double the climate benefits of the phase-down. She also noted that low-GWP refrigerants themselves were only expected to have a minor impact on the system efficiency, likely to be within ±5 per cent of the energy performance of baseline refrigerant(s). Refrigerant blends could enable system optimization balancing between coefficient of performance, volumetric capacity, flammability and GWP. The largest proportion of any improvement in energy efficiency of refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump systems could be achieved through the optimization and use of new and advanced components, particularly compressors, heat exchangers and controls.
5. Another request from parties had been to consider the lessons learned from previous refrigerant transitions. The Montreal Protocol had considered energy efficiency alongside the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. Specifically, in domestic refrigeration, CFC-12 had been phased out to either hydrocarbon HC-600a or HFC-134a. HC-600a had become dominant, but HFC-134a, even with a higher GWP, had been favoured in regions where concern about flammability was a significant market barrier for hydrocarbons. When transitioning from CFC-12 in domestic refrigeration, industry had made great efforts to improve energy efficiency, mainly through better compressor and system designs. Lessons had also been learned in the transition in room air conditioners. Non-Article 5 markets had initially adapted to the phase-out of HCFC-22 with R-407C, and then R-410A with better energy performance. Currently, global markets were adapting to medium-GWP and low-GWP options to replace HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs in air conditioners, including HFC-32, HC-290 and others under development. The performance of room air conditioners could be optimized with improved compressor, refrigerant charge and size of the heat exchanger. She noted that in the absence of enabling energy efficiency policy, energy efficiency values for air-conditioning were generally lower in Article 5 than non-Article 5 parties.
6. Mr. Polonara then presented the answers on the challenges for energy efficiency equipment under high ambient temperature (HAT) conditions and design of refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump units.
7. In response to the parties’ request that the Panel look at measures taken in other regions in recent years and address the particular challenges faced by HAT countries, he said that, according to the literature, worldwide demand for cooling energy in 2100 was predicted to increase dramatically due to climate change and income growth, with most demand occurring in the tropical regions. For example, the need for increased space cooling due to climate change in HAT conditions was projected to be 10–30 per cent higher in 2100.
8. Looking at measures taken in other regions, he suggested that minimum energy performance standards and labels had proved to be cost-effective policy tools, reducing energy consumption without reducing consumer choice or triggering sustained price increases. As an example, air‑conditioning equipment designed in accord with the European Union Ecodesign regulation were expected to save 11 TWh and nearly 5 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually by 2020.
9. As far as the request to report on what research and development was occurring, and its progress and outcomes, to address HAT challenges, he said that since 2012, four collective research projects had been launched working with various refrigerant alternatives to test units for performance and energy efficiency in HAT condition projects, carried out by main research establishments in the Middle East and in the United States. He added that the details of the four projects were available in the updated report presented by the energy efficiency task force.
10. He then presented a table summarizing some of the results of the four projects in order to give an idea of how the design of refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump units could be affected by HAT conditions.
11. As an example of the results in terms of cooling capacity and energy efficiency from studies on alternative refrigerants he presented the results of the tests done within the PRAHA project on ducted split air conditioners whose baseline refrigerant was HCFC-22. The performances obtained with some fluorinated blends proposed as low-GWP alternatives gave a decrease in refrigerating capacity ranging from 5 to 8 per cent with respect to the baseline and a decrease in efficiency ranging from 10 to 12 per cent.
12. With regard to the request to provide information on additional gains from improved servicing, Mr. Polonara listed the several benefits of high-quality service and maintenance as follows: reduced energy costs; reduced refrigerant leaks; improved safety by eliminating risks; better temperature control and thermal comfort for occupants; improved occupant productivity by maintaining a high quality indoor environment; deferred capital expenditure for replacement and repair cost by extending the useful life of equipment.
13. Regarding the request for more information on specific economic benefits in terms of savings to consumers, power plants, payback periods he said that given that the economic benefits of energy efficiency varied by equipment type, application, weather, time and by local factors such as discount rates, hours of use, electricity prices and transmission losses, it was possible to cite some examples of worldwide achievements.
14. Energy efficiency measures for Mexico housing offered payback periods of 4–6 years, while energy efficiency improvement of India room air conditioners had payback periods of 1–3 years. As far as the power plants were involved, it had been estimated that the global reduction of peak load by an improvement in energy efficiency of 30 per cent for room air conditioners alone would abolish the need for around 1400 peak load power plants of 500MW capacity by 2030 and around 2200 peak load power plants by 2050.
15. Regarding the request that a matrix of technical interventions to energy efficiency and associated costs be provided, Mr. Polonara said that in the report some tables showed the requested data and, as an example, showed the case of improved controls which could lead to an increase in energy efficiency ranging from 10 per cent to 50 per cent with a low to medium cost for implementation.
16. In terms of the request on the exploration of the possibility of district cooling, a green buildings code and hydrocarbons in commercial applications to be options for energy efficiency, he referred the audience to the energy efficiency task force updated report for details, noting that in the case of district cooling in the United Arab Emirates, which had been able to reduce power demand by 55–62 per cent in comparison to conventional air-conditioning systems and consume 40–50 per cent less energy. Those results could be enhanced if some not-in-kind technologies, such as absorption refrigeration, were used.
17. Subsequently, Ms. Carvalho, co-chair of the task force, provided an overview of the responses to the requests concerning funding and financing energy efficiency.
18. Regarding the request to elaborate on the criteria and methodologies of relevant funding institutions, she said that the public information available for eight other funding institutions had been added to the report; it was not as comprehensive as desired due to difficulties in obtaining specific information focusing on energy efficiency in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump sectors. Regarding the request for the task force to prepare a tabular presentation of funding sources, due to the lack of specific information on the internet, the task force had performed a search (supported by the Kigali Cooling Efficiency Program (K-CEP)) of the Creditor Reporting System Funding Database covering official development assistance (ODA) and published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Key words linked to the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump sectors had been used and tagged to climate change. As result, a snapshot of funded projects in 2014 and 2015 was presented to illustrate types and scale of funding. The result of the search showed that refrigeration and air-conditioning only represented 0.1 per cent of total development aid, indicating that there was extremely low international focus on the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump sectors relative to other development topics. A tabular presentation of ODA funding sources was presented adding known philanthropic organizations and institutions with projects starting after 2015. Regarding the request to provide further information on the takeaway messages from the energy efficiency workshop on availability of funds that were not easily flowing, the energy efficiency task force considered that while providing a compilation of funding sources, that compilation exercise was insufficient alone and that a majority of large multilateral climate funds operated in projects in sectors other than refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pumps, such as infrastructure, energy access and renewable energy transmissions. Ms. Carvalho said that in spite of the low level of official development assistance funding focusing on the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump sectors, there were numerous financial resources for project implementation in the field of energy efficiency in general, but barriers to access those funds needed to be addressed. She suggested that parties consider liaising with the main funding institutions with shared objectives to increase funding flow to refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pumps and develop or streamline processes to enable timely access to funding. In addition, the energy efficiency task force suggested that parties consider investigating novel funding architectures with clear rules, regulations and governance structures for optimal bridging to other financial resources.

1. Presentations during the high-level segment by members of the assessment panels on progress in the work of the panels

1.       Scientific Assessment Panel

1. Mr. John Pyle, Mr. Paul A. Newman, Mr. David W. Fahey, and Mr. Bonfils Safari, co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel, gave a presentation and answered questions on progress and key issues in the 2018 assessment, prepared in accordance with the requirement under the Montreal Protocol that the Panel provide the latest information on the state of the ozone layer, the stratosphere, and ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), at least every four years. The presentation provided an overview of the 2018 assessment and highlighted key issues.
2. The 2018 assessment comprised six chapters on: ozone-depleting substances; HFCs; global stratospheric ozone - past, present and future; polar stratospheric ozone - past, present and future; stratospheric ozone changes and climate; scenarios and information for policymakers. It had been completed at a meeting in Les Diablerets in Switzerland in July 2018 and would be available in December 2018. The Executive Summary had been released on 5 November and was available at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2018/executivesummary.pdf.
3. Specific highlights of the report included:
   1. Actions taken under the Montreal Protocol had led to decreases in the atmospheric abundance of controlled ozone-depleting substances. Current levels of chlorine and bromine gases entering the stratosphere were both approximately10 per cent below the peak values occurring in the 1990s. The decline in the abundance of atmospheric chlorine since 2014 was in line with projections in the last assessment, but the decline in CFCs was slower than projected while the increase in HCFCs was also slower than expected;
   2. There had been an unexpected increase in total global emissions of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11). Global CFC-11 emissions, derived from measurements by two independent networks, had increased after 2012 contrary to projections from previous assessments, which showed decreasing emissions. Global CFC-11 emissions for 2014–2016 were approximately 10 Gg yr^-1 (about 15 per cent) higher than the fairly constant emissions derived for 2002–2012. The increase in global emissions above the 2002–2012 average resulted in a global concentration decline in CFC-11 over the 2014–2016 period that was only two-thirds as fast as that over the 2002–2012. The CFC-11 emissions increase suggested new production not reported to the Ozone Secretariat.  
4. Sources of significant carbon tetrachloride (CCl₄) emissions, some previously unrecognized, had been quantified. At least 25 Gg yr^-1 of emissions had been estimated, mainly originating from the industrial production of chloro-methanes, perchloroethylene and chlorine. The global CCl₄ budget was now much better understood and the previously identified gap between observation-based and industry-based emission estimates had been substantially reduced compared to the 2014 assessment.
5. The weight of evidence suggested that the decline in ozone-depleting substances had made a substantial contribution to the following observed ozone trends: the Antarctic ozone hole was recovering, while continuing to occur every year; as a result of the Montreal Protocol much more severe ozone depletion in the polar regions had been avoided; outside the polar regions, upper stratospheric ozone had increased by 1–3 per cent per decade since 2000; no significant trend had been detected in global (60°S–60°N) total column ozone over the 1997–2016 period with average values in the years since the last assessment remaining roughly 2 per cent below the 1964–1980 average.
6. Ozone layer changes in the latter half of the present century would be complex, with projected increases and decreases in different regions. Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude total column ozone was expected to return to 1980 abundances in the 2030s, and Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude ozone to return around mid-century. The Antarctic ozone hole was expected to gradually close, with springtime total column ozone returning to 1980 values in the 2060s.
7. HFC emissions estimated from the combination of inventory reporting and atmospheric observations indicated that the HFC emissions originated from both developed and developing countries. Radiative forcing from measured HFCs continued to increase, but the HFC phase-down schedule of the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol would substantially reduce future projected global HFC emissions and, assuming global compliance, was projected to reduce future radiative forcing due to HFCs by about 50 per cent by 2050 compared to a scenario without any HFC controls. Accordingly, the Kigali Amendment was projected to reduce future global average warming in 2100 due to HFCs from a baseline of 0.3–0.5^oC to less than 0.1^oC.
8. The Scientific Assessment Panel had concluded that the continued success of the Montreal Protocol in protecting stratospheric ozone depended on continued compliance with the Protocol.

2.       Environmental Effects Assessment Panel

1. The co-chairs of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Ms. Janet Bornman and Mr. Nigel Paul, presented the quadrennial assessment for 2018 on the environmental effects of ozone depletion, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and interactions with climate change. The assessment highlighted the important role played by the Montreal Protocol in terms of its contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals as well as the alignment of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel report with many of those goals.
2. Ms. Bornman drew attention to the significant role of the Montreal Protocol in preventing extensive negative effects on human health and the environment. With regard to human health in the “world avoided” scenario (a world without an effective Montreal Protocol), the wide-range of interactive effects of UV radiation, ozone depletion and climate change were addressed, taking into account the adverse effects as well as the benefits of exposure to UV radiation.
3. Although the Montreal Protocol had prevented large increases in skin cancers and cataract, incidences of UV-related cancers and cataract continued to pose major health problems. Cases of skin cancers remained high, mainly in light-skinned populations, with a considerable cost to society and human well-being. Cataract continued to be the leading cause of blindness globally, and UV radiation was the major risk factor in its development. UV radiation was also implicated in a debilitating eye condition, age-related macular degeneration, which caused loss of colour and central vision. Changes in lifestyle towards increased sun exposure played a large part in determining the severity of skin cancers, eye diseases and other health issues. Climate change was becoming a key factor in influencing sun exposure behaviour.
4. The body’s immune defence mechanism against infections and certain cancers could be modified by UV radiation. In some cases, UV radiation suppressed the immune system, contributing to higher incidences of some skin cancers, and reduced the efficacy of vaccines against several infectious diseases. In other cases, UV radiation could have a beneficial effect against some autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis. Other key beneficial effects of UV radiation were the generation of vitamin D in the skin, which was required for healthy bones, as well as lowering the risk of colorectal cancer, short-sightedness, allergies and skin inflammation.
5. Expected decreases in air pollution in heavily polluted areas were likely to cause local increases in UV radiation. Concurrent changes in stratospheric ozone and cloud cover would determine future UV radiation at the Earth’s surface. In currently polluted areas, however, direct links had been shown between poor air quality and declining human health, leading in many instances to millions of deaths from respiratory problems from aerosols and ozone, as well as cardiovascular disease and some cancers.
6. Mr. Paul highlighted the way in which tropospheric air quality was determined by emissions, weather, and by photochemical transformations driven by UV radiation. Changes in UV radiation, due to the future recovery of stratospheric ozone and the effects of climate change, were expected to affect ground-level ozone concentrations. The magnitude and direction of change would vary substantially between different geographical locations (e.g., urban vs. rural). Emissions of some replacements for ozone-depleting substances (e.g., ammonia, hydrocarbons) might have direct or indirect effects on tropospheric air quality. These effects were currently assessed to be small relative to other sources, but there was a lack of published information. Future decline in tropospheric air quality posed a threat to crop production as well as human health, one mechanism of several by which future changes in stratospheric ozone might influence food security.
7. Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) was a degradation product of several HCFCs, HFCs and HFOs, as well as some other man-made fluorocarbon compounds. TFA was highly persistent and could accumulate in water bodies. The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel’s previous assessment, that future concentrations of TFA due to the expected use of replacements for ozone-depleting substances did not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment, remained unchanged.
8. UV radiation affected water quality as it played a major a major role in breaking down plastics and chemical contaminants in the environment, and in determining the survival of microbes that caused water-borne diseases. The priority for current research was to use improved modelling approaches to quantify how those processes would be affected by future changes in stratospheric ozone and other factors that influenced UV radiation in water bodies.
9. UV radiation in water bodies was strongly attenuated by natural organic materials dissolved in the water. Extreme weather events and permafrost thawing were increasing inputs of dissolved organic matter, reducing the penetration of UV radiation into waters. Reductions in ice or snow cover in polar regions were increasing the penetration of UV radiation into waters that were previously below the snow or ice. Those climate-driven effects would act alongside future changes in stratospheric ozone to modify the UV exposure of aquatic organisms and ecosystems, including fisheries.
10. Antarctic stratospheric ozone depletion was contributing to regional climate change in the southern hemisphere. The resulting changes in patterns of precipitation, temperature, UV-B radiation and wild fires were having measurable impacts in southern hemisphere ecosystems. How long those currently observed effects on ecosystems would persist depended on the timescale of the recovery of Antarctic ozone. It was likely that any environmental effects of delayed recovery of stratospheric ozone, for example due to recently reported unexpected CFC-11 emissions, would be most evident through those climate-driven mechanisms.
11. Globally, the implementation of the Montreal Protocol had protected crop production from the damaging effects of both elevated UV radiation and climate change. To date, however, there were no “world avoided” models of those effects. By protecting climate, the Kigali Amendment would also protect crops from the damaging effects of increased temperature and extremes of water availability (drought, floods).
12. Crop responses to climate change could be modified by UV radiation and vice versa. Effects were expected to vary between species and growing conditions. Therefore, understanding current and evolving drivers of change in food security, for example due to changes in climate, ozone and air quality, as well as UV radiation, demanded holistic, interdisciplinary assessment.
13. Solar UV radiation damaged the functional integrity and shortened service lifetimes of plastics and wood used in construction, and might constrain the service life of new polymer-based photovoltaics. UV stabilizers, surface treatments or coatings were being developed to mitigate the adverse effects of UV radiation and climate. The emerging trend for “greener” materials was driving efforts to reduce the environmental effects of those UV stabilisers.
14. In closing, Mr. Paul noted that the 2018 assessment of environmental effects, including on health, reinforced the benefits of the Montreal Protocol relevant to multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Another benefit was the new scientific knowledge that now underpinned the understanding of many environmental challenges.

3.       Key messages emerging from the Panel’s 2018 assessment reports

1. A presentation on the key messages emerging from the Panel’s 2018 assessment reports was given by Mr. Ashley Woodcock, co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; Mr. Paulo Altoé, co-chair of the Foams Technical Options Committee; Ms. Helen Tope, co-chair of the Medical and Chemical Technical Options Committee; Mr. Adam Chattaway, co-chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee; Mr. Ian Porter, co-chair of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee; and Mr. Fabio Polonara, co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee.

(a)        Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

1. Mr. Woodcock, co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, also on behalf of Panel co-chairs Ms. Marta Pizano and Ms. Bella Maranion, introduced the presentation on the progress of work and key issues emerging from the Panel’s 2018 assessment reports. He presented a full list of the 20 current members of the Panel, of which 10 were from Article 5 parties and 10 were from non‑Article 5 parties. The 2018 assessment reports responded to decision XXVII/6, which had requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel reports to consider:
   1. The impact of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances on sustainable development;
   2. Technical progress in the production and consumption sectors in the transition to alternatives and practices that eliminated or minimized emissions of ozone-depleting substances in consideration of factors stipulated in the Vienna Convention;
   3. Technically and economically feasible choices for the reduction and elimination of ozone-depleting substances in all relevant sectors;
   4. The status of banks containing ozone-depleting substances and their alternatives, including those maintained for essential and critical uses, and options for handling them;
   5. Accounting for the production and consumption for various applications and relevant sources of ozone-depleting substances and their alternatives.

1. Mr. Woodcock described the timelines for the assessment reports, noting that reports of the technical options committees were due on 31 December 2018, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel report by the forty-first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, and the synthesis report by the Thirty-First Meeting of the Parties. He then introduced the individual co-chairs of the technical options committees, who described the key messages emerging from their sectors.

(b)        Foams Technical Options Committee

1. Mr. Altoé, co-chair of the Foams Technical Options Committee, also on behalf of co-chair Ms. Helen Walter-Terrinoni, presented the key messages from the Committee’s 2018 assessment report. Mr. Altoé discussed the availability of zero ozone depletion potential and low global warming potential (GWP) blowing agents, noting that there had been significant improvements in the development and availability of foam additives enabling the successful commercialization of foams containing zero-ODP and low-GWP blowing agents. He also noted that blowing agent conversions were under way in Europe and other non-Article 5 parties and that F-gas regulations had accelerated conversions. The Committee had been unable to gather details on specific product availability because companies kept certain information confidential.
2. With regard to CFC-11, the Committee was aware of the marketing of CFC-11 for use in foams on the internet and by other means. The Committee’s 2018 assessment report would provide a summary of the technical feasibility of reverting to CFC-11 in foam blowing. Mr. Altoé noted that the initial CFC-11 conversion to HCFC-141b required significant adjustments to the formulation because of the solvent properties of HCFC-141b, while, in contrast, switching back to CFC-11 from HCFC‑141b would require minimal adjustment of the formulation. Lastly, he noted that the substitution of CFC-11 into hydrocarbon or HFC formulations was more difficult.

(c)        Halons Technical Options Committee

1. Mr. Chattaway, co-chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee, also on behalf of co‑chairs Mr. Daniel Verdonik and Mr. Sergey Kopylov, presented the key messages from the Committee’s 2018 assessment report. For several years the Committee had reported little or no significant progress in new replacement fire extinguishing agents, but this had changed recently. In October 2018, a new low‑GWP blend had been announced for total flooding; this was a blend of two existing low-GWP agents: FK-5-1-12 and HCFO-1233zd(E). Because of the time taken for new agents to be adopted by the relevant standards organizations it would be several years before market impact could be assessed. Regarding military systems, there were virtually no applications where a halon needed to be used for new designs although there were many applications where there were no low‑GWP alternatives. In legacy (existing) designs, there were applications where neither a suitable halon nor a high-GWP HFC alternative existed for retrofit. In oil and gas operations, halon 1301 was only required to support long‑term legacy facilities, whereas all new facilities were halon-free, but depending on the climate (i.e., low temperature), might require HFC-23, a very high-GWP HFC (12,400).
2. Mr Chattaway presented information on halon and HFC fire extinguishant banks. The estimated size of the global halon banks from the Committee’s model at the end of 2018 were (in tonnes): halon 1301: 37,750; halon 1211: 24,000 and halon 2402: 6,750. It was noted that the Committee’s model used expert opinion on emission rates of various end uses, by region. Regarding estimated emissions derived from atmospheric measurements: for halon 1301, while within uncertainty, they were higher than the Halons Technical Options Committee model, providing a significantly smaller bank; for halon 1211 they were consistently higher than the Committee’s model since 2002, providing a significantly smaller bank; and for halon 2402, while within uncertainty, they were less than the Committee’s model, providing a somewhat larger bank. Estimated annual emissions of HFC-227ea (the main high-GWP alternative to halon 1301) from fire protection applications in 2018 were 3,400 metric tonnes. Assuming a global average annual emission rate of 2.5 per cent, the global bank was therefore estimated to be 130,000 metric tonnes at the end of 2018, but he noted that higher emission rates would provide a resulting smaller bank. Owing to the continued global demand from long-term applications, the Halons Technical Options Committee continued to recommend that the destruction of fire extinguishants should be considered only as a last resort, i.e., only if they were too contaminated to be recycled/reclaimed to an acceptable purity.
3. Mr. Chattaway presented an update on civil aviation, noting that halon 1211 alternative (2‑BTP) in portable extinguishers was being used on aircraft coming off the production line. Very recently (the week before the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties), new progress had been announced in the testing of a proprietary blend to replace halon 1301 in cargo bays. In addition, re-testing of a halon 1301 replacement in engine nacelles is ongoing. Nevertheless, as reported under decision XXIX/8, the Halons Technical Options Committee had serious concerns regarding the long-term availability of halon 1301 for civil aviation and other long-term uses beyond the early 2030s, given that the annual rate of halon 1301 emissions in civil aviation might be substantially greater than previous estimates, and most of the halon 1301 bank was unlikely to be available for civil aviation use. The consequences of those factors meant that the available amount of halon 1301 would not be sufficient for all long-term applications (e.g., civil aviation, oil and gas, and military use). In closing, Mr. Chattaway said that given that the lifetime of an aircraft was approximately 40 years, there would not be sufficient halon 1301 for the lifetimes of aircraft currently being built.

(d)        Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

1. Mr. Ian Porter, co-chair of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, also on behalf of co-chair Ms. Marta Pizano, presented an overview of the issues related to methyl bromide. He explained that the methyl bromide phase-out for controlled uses had been achieved in nearly all countries, but that an unknown level of stocks was still being used. The Committee was aware of marketing of methyl bromide on the internet without apparent restriction for controlled uses and that made it difficult to determine how many countries were still using methyl bromide outside of the critical-use exemption procedures. Less than 290 tonnes (0.5 per cent of the global baseline) had reportedly been used in four countries in 2017 under the critical-use exemptions of the Protocol. Alternatives for virtually all controlled uses were now available and had been adopted.
2. In 2017, approximately 10,000 tonnes of methyl bromide had been used for quarantine and pre-shipment and that figure was increasing. In 2017, six non-Article 5 parties (34 per cent of total quarantine and pre-shipment use) and 41 Article 5 parties (66 per cent of total quarantine and pre‑shipment use) had reported methyl bromide consumption for quarantine and pre-shipment uses. Aggregated use showed that Asia accounted for 55 per cent of the consumption; Australia, Israel, New Zealand and the United States of America for 30 per cent; Latin America and the Caribbean for 10 per cent; and Africa for 5 per cent, with no consumption in Europe. In the past 10 years, quarantine and pre-shipment consumption had more than doubled in some parties, which could be due to increased trade, threats from quarantine pests, and/or incorrect classification of quarantine and pre‑shipment uses. The key factor impacting global emissions was the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment, being approximately 7,500 tonnes per year. Methyl bromide used for quarantine and pre-shipment were highly emissive (up to 95 per cent of the methyl bromide could be vented directly to the atmosphere after fumigation), advances in recapture and destruction technologies could, however, substantially reduce emissions. In closing, he explained that some parties were enforcing the mandatory recapture of quarantine and pre-shipment methyl bromide under their own national policies to minimize emissions and over concerns for human health.

(e)        Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee

1. Ms Helen Tope, co-chair of the Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee, also on behalf of co-chairs Mr. Keiichi Ohnishi and Mr. Jianjun Zhang, said that CFC-containing metered‑dose inhalers had been phased out, with affordable alternatives available worldwide. Some 800 million inhalers were used annually, with a global average 50:50 proportion of HFC metered-dose inhalers versus dry powder inhalers, within which there was large regional variability. She noted that HFC-134a was the major metered-dose inhaler propellant, and that new propellants with lower GWP were in the early stages of development. She suggested that a reduction in the carbon footprint for inhaler use could be achieved by switching to dry powder inhalers, by avoiding inhalers using HFC‑227ea, and using only metered-dose inhalers with low volumes of HFC-134a propellant. For aerosols and sterilants, the global use of HCFCs in those applications was relatively very small, with a range of alternatives available. Many aerosol propellants had migrated to flammable hydrocarbons and dimethyl ether, especially for consumer aerosols. She noted that non-flammable, non-toxic HFCs were used in aerosols when flammability or toxicity was a consideration, and also where emissions of volatile organic compounds were controlled. For solvents, a range of alternatives were available for HCFCs, with solvent cleaning ceased in non-Article 5 parties, with the exception of aerospace and military applications, and reduced in Article 5 parties. Quantities of controlled substances used for process agents had decreased. Reported global production of controlled substances for laboratory and analytical uses was relatively small at around 150 tonnes. Production of controlled substances for feedstock uses had grown significantly between 1990 and 2011, and since then had fluctuated around a mean total of 116,000 tonnes per year. For other chemicals, emissions of CFC-11, carbon tetrachloride, and the very short-lived substances dichloromethane and dichloroethane, were presented in the assessment report. In closing, she highlighted that since 1996, over 300,000 tonnes of controlled substances had been destroyed, and many non-Article 5 parties had already mandated the destruction of waste HFCs.

(f)         Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee

1. Mr. Polonara, co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee, also on behalf of his co-chair, Mr. Roberto Peixoto, said that in non-Article 5 parties the HCFC phase-out was almost complete and was progressing in Article 5 parties. More specifically, in Article 5 parties, HCFC-22 consumption in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat‑pumps sector was decreasing and HCFCs would soon be used only in servicing for that sector, with low-GWP solutions becoming increasingly available for many applications in the sector. He noted the current concerns in some Article 5 parties in terms of the availability and cost of HFO refrigerants, and said that the development of safety standards for the use of flammable refrigerants was progressing. He also noted that refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump technology, such as CO₂ ejectors, and microchannel heat exchangers, was rapidly evolving.
2. Energy (electricity) consumption for the sector had been increasing globally due to the substantial growth in equipment numbers, especially in Article 5 parties. The 2016 annual sales of air conditioners was estimated at 135 million units with 1.6 billion air conditioners in use. There was growing concern over the efficiency of refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump systems aimed at reducing energy consumption and at delivering cooling and heating in a more sustainable way. In closing, Mr. Polonara said that an integrated approach was needed for low-GWP solutions, including energy efficiency, flammability, toxicity and servicing.

(g)        Concluding remarks

1. In rounding up the presentations, Mr. Woodcock said that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Report would include the executive summaries of the assessment reports of the technical options committees, and cross-cutting issues such as energy efficiency, sustainability, CFC‑11 and organizational planning. The executive summary of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s assessment report would then be integrated with the executive summaries of the assessment reports of the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel into the 2019 synthesis report.