Skip to main content

Annex II: Summaries of presentations by members of the assessment panels and technical options committees

          A.       Interim report of the Scientific Assessment Panel on increased emissions of CFC-11

    1. Dr. Paul A. Newman, Prof. John Pyle, and Prof. Bonfils Safari (Scientific Assessment Panel co-chairs) with Dr. Stephen Montzka (NOAA, USA) gave a presentation on the “SAP interim report on increased emissions of CFC-11.” In response to recent observational findings concerning CFC-11, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol approved “Decision XXX/3: Unexpected emissions of CFC-11.” This decision formally asked the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) to provide a summary report on this “… unexpected increase of CFC-11 emissions ...” , with an interim report is required for the 31st MOP.
    2. The SAP presentation had 6 elements:
      • Report Status
      • CFC-11 observations and global network
      • What’s in WMO/UNEP [2018]?
      • Rigby et al. [2019] showing regional emissions
      • Preliminary updated results for 2018-2019
      • Summary
    3. The SAP has worked with the science community to push forward work on the CFC-11 issue. Two events have been completed in 2019: 1) the March 2019 Symposium on CFC-11 in Vienna, Austria; and 2) the publication of the SPARC Report in July 2019, “Report on the International Symposium on the Unexpected Increase in Emissions of Ozone-Depleting CFC-11.”  In December 2019 there will be a CFC-11 Special Session at AGU Fall meeting in San Francisco, USA.
    4. The Report on CFC-11 for the 32nd MOP is in development. The SAP reported that the outline, and revised (extended) outline of the report is now complete, and the Author and Advisory Committee has been established. The Advisory Group includes: Paul Fraser (Australia), Neil Harris (UK), Jianxin Hu (China), Michelle Santee (USA), Paul A. Newman (SAP), David Fahey (SAP), Bonfils Safari (SAP), and John Pyle (SAP). The outline and their authors will cover five CFC-11 topics along with an Introduction and Summary:
      1. Introduction: Advisory Group
      2. Observations: Stefan Reimann (Switzerland), Bo Yao (China)
      3. Global emissions: Steve Montzka (USA), Sunyoung Park (South Korea)
      4. Regional emissions: Matt Rigby (UK), Andreas Stohl (Norway).
      5. Scenarios: Guus Velders (Netherlands), Helen Walter-Terrinoni (USA).
      6. Modeling: Martyn Chipperfield (UK), Michaela Hegglin (UK)
      7. Summary: All
    5. The SAP also recalled their discussion at the 41st OEWG. The foundation for global and regional ODS emissions determinations is based upon the precise, accurate, long-term measurements from two ground-based networks (NOAA and AGAGE). CFC-11 atmospheric levels and trends are estimated from the averages of these network observations. Derivation of the magnitude and trends of global emissions use time series of the average global abundance, and ODS atmospheric lifetime. Magnitude and trends of regional emissions are derived from network measurements combined with meteorological information of prevailing winds from source(s) to measurement sites (back trajectories). 
    6. In published studies available at the present time, measured CFC-11 levels continued to decline through 2017, but at a much slower rate than observed a few years prior (from 2002-2012). Monthly averaged observations were shown from around the world, along with maps of station locations. The global averaged observations were derived from 5 AGAGE stations, and 12 NOAA background sites.
    7. The CFC-11 main findings from the Executive Summary of the “Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018” were again reiterated to the 31st MOP. Most particularly, there was an unexpected increase in global total emissions of CFC-11 in recent years, confirming the initial paper by Montzka et al. [2018]. Global CFC-11 emissions derived from measurements by two independent networks increased after 2012, thereby slowing the steady decrease in atmospheric concentrations that had been observed in the decade prior to 2012 and which was reported in previous Assessments. The global concentration decline over 2014 to 2016 was only two-thirds as fast as it was from 2002 to 2012.  While the observations also indicated that emissions of CFC-11 from eastern Asia had increased since 2012, the contribution of this region to the global emission rise was not well known. The country or countries in which emissions had increased was not identified in these earlier reports.
    8. The presentation also included a slide from the peer-reviewed paper by Rigby et al. in Nature, “Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations.” This study extended our understanding of global emissions through 2017 (emissions were also elevated in this year) and also used high-frequency atmospheric observations from Gosan, South Korea, and Hateruma, Japan and atmospheric chemical transport models to show that emissions from eastern mainland China had increased concurrently with the rise in global emissions; they were determined to be 7.0 ± 3.0 (±1s) Gg yr-1 higher in 2014–2017 than in 2008–2012. This emission increase was found in and around the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei.
    9. Dr. Stephen Montzka of the SAP provided preliminary NOAA measurement results for the 2018-2019 period and he also provided new preliminary AGAGE results courtesy of Dr. Sunyoung Park (Kyungpook Nat. Univ., Republic of Korea). These new 2018-2019 results showed: 1) an accelerating global concentration decline, 2) a decreasing Northern-Southern hemispheric concentration difference, 3) a decrease of concentrations in pollution plumes reaching Hawaii, and 4) decreased concentrations in pollution plumes reaching Jeju Isl., ROK. These new results imply that CFC-11 emissions have declined both globally and from eastern China since the 2014-2017 period.
    10. In summary, the SAP showed that based on published data through 2017: 1) that atmospheric CFC-11 levels had continued to decline, but at a much lower rate than in earlier years than was expected, 2) there had been an unexpected increase of CFC-11 emissions, and 3) new research (published in Rigby et al., although not yet fully assessed by the SAP) had determined that 40-60% of these global emission increases had originated in eastern China. Drs. Montzka and Park used preliminary data in 2018-2019 (not published and not assessed by SAP) to show multiple lines of evidence implying that CFC-11 emissions have declined both globally and from eastern China since the 2014-2017 period. The SAP finally noted that the CFC-11 Report is in preparation and will be presented next year at the Meeting of the Parties.

           B.       Final report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel task force on unexpected emissions of CFC-11

    1.  Ms. Helen Walter-Terrinoni first reiterated Decision XXX/3: Unexpected Emissions of CFC‑11:
      Noting the recent scientific findings showing that there has been an unexpected increase in global emissions of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) since 2012, after the consumption and production phase-out date established under the Montreal Protocol consequently requesting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel provide the parties with information on potential sources of emissions of CFC-11 and related controlled substances from potential production and uses, as well as from banks, that may have resulted in emissions of CFC-11 in unexpected quantities in the relevant regions; a preliminary report should be provided to the Open-ended Working Group at its forty-first meeting and a final report to the Thirty-First Meeting of the Parties.
    2. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni noted that a submission was received from China for the preliminary report. Following the OEWG, additional information was submitted by China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Russia, and the United States for the final report. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni then shared the list of 22 Task Force members including 9 members from A5 parties and 5 female members.
    3. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni then provided an overview of the Final Report of Unexpected CFC-11 Final Report noting that the Final Report builds on the Preliminary Report using additional information to complete the analysis, and to confirm or update assumptions. The report includes analyses CFC-11 production, usage, banks and emissions at the global and regional levels, eliminates unlikely additional emissions sources, identifies likely emissions sources and estimates the quantity of newly produced CFC-11 to supply them. It provides additional information on marketing and illicit international trade and  considers questions raised at the 41st OEWG.
    4. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni then provided additional background stating that CFC-11 was used as a foam-blowing agent (for open and closed cell foams), aerosol propellant, refrigerant (largely for centrifugal chillers), and in smaller uses, e.g., asthma inhalers, tobacco expansion. Alternatives replaced former uses. She then stated that CFC-11 production/consumption in non-A5 parties was phased out in 1996, with some production for basic domestic needs. She then noted that while CFC-11 production/consumption in A5 parties was phased out in 2010. Some A5 parties were funded to complete their phase-out earlier and then stated that over time, CFC-11 is released into the atmosphere from banks of CFC-11 produced prior to the phase-out. These banks are made of CFC-11 remaining in closed cell foams and centrifugal chillers.
    5. Ms Walter-Terrinoni then briefly provided background on the work of the scientists detecting the unexpected emissions mentioning both the Montzka et al. (Nature, May 2018) report of an unexpected, global increase in CFC-11 emissions of 13,000 ± 5,000 tonnes/year after 2012 cf. 2002‑2012 from the northern hemisphere. She stated that the study suggests that there is a concurrent increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern Asia, although the regional contribution to the global increase was not quantified, and that the increase in CFC-11 emissions arises from new post-2010 production that has not been reported to the Ozone Secretariat. She also mentioned the Rigby et al. (Nature, May 2019) reported increased CFC-11 emissions from eastern mainland China of 7,000 ± 3,000 (±1 standard deviation) tonnes/year in 2014-2017 compared with 2008-2012. She stated that these arise primarily from Shandong and Hebei provinces, accounting for at least 40-60% of the global increase in CFC-11 emissions and that there was no evidence for any significant increase in CFC-11 emissions for those other countries or regions that were adequately monitored by atmospheric measurements.
    6. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni then stated that Pre-2010 production and usage is unlikely to account for CFC-11 emissions noting that a wide range of scenarios was developed to investigate the broadest possible quantities of potential emissions from pre-2010 production and usage. She then stated that the Task Force was able to identify a reasonable set of plausible assumptions for a “most likely” bottom‑up emissions scenario, based on pre-2010 CFC-11 production, prior installation of foams/RAC, existing foams/RAC banks, and end-of-life management and that the emissions scenarios estimated from pre-2010 production, usage, and banks do not account for the increased atmospheric-derived emissions. She went on to say that based on Task Force analysis of CFC-11 production, usage, emissions and comparison against atmospheric-derived emissions, it is unlikely that pre-2010 production and usage can account for the unexpected CFC-11 emissions without new CFC-11 production and usage.
    7. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni then showed the graph of the ”Most likely” scenario of bottom-up CFC‑11 emissions  (Figure 6.10 in the Final Report) which includes the  “global atmospheric-derived emissions” representing the range from 2018 SAP Assessment Report, and the “most likely” scenario estimate of expected global emissions from past production, usage and existing banks. She then reiterated that the task force had examined a broad range of possible scenarios and none of them aligned with the derived atmospheric emissions after 2012.
    8. She then explained that the Montzka et al. (2018) describes a change in atmospheric derived emissions in different time periods, from 2014-2016 compared to 2002-2012. In contrast, she stated the Task Force report describes the difference between the “most likely” expected emissions (the line) compared to the atmospheric-derived emissions from SAP Assessment Report (2018) in the same time period.
    9. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni then went on to explain that the Final Report examined CFC-11 usage in closed-cell foam by region prior to 2010 stating that prior to 2010, most closed-cell foams were produced and used in Europe and North America (prior to 1996). Consequently, most of the global CFC-11 emissions occurred during foam manufacturing and installation, and during the lifetime of products containing those foams, within Europe and North America, the majority of the closed-cell foams in these regions was landfilled or destroyed locally at end-of-life, with low emissions, and that there are significant quantities of CFC-11 closed-cell foams still in buildings in Europe and North America as banks.
    10. She went on to state that the Final Report includes analysis of CFC-11 emissions from closed‑cell foams at their end of life based on available information in all regions, which includes extreme and unlikely scenarios. She then showed a pie chart of the foams produced by region and reiterated that 70% of foams produced prior to 2006 were produced, used and disposed of in Europe and North America.
    11. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni went on to say that the CFC-11 emissions from regional foam banks are insufficient to explain atmospheric-derived emissions repeating that further analysis of regional banks was completed for the Final Report, incorporating the duration of foam use and the subsequent timing of emissions from dismantling foams. She went on to explain that the Task Force found that expected emissions originating from the pre-2010 foam banks in every region are insufficient to explain the unexpected CFC-11 emissions and, more specifically, that the Task Force concluded that the expected emissions from the pre-2010 CFC-11 foam banks in Northeast Asia are insufficient to account for the atmospheric-derived CFC-11 emissions from eastern mainland China estimated by Rigby et al.
    12. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni then explained that rresumption of newly produced CFC-11 usage in closed-cell foams is likely and then expanded on the conclusion stated at the Open-ended Working Group in 2019 saying that it is unlikely that there has been a resumption of newly produced CFC-11 usage in refrigeration and air-conditioning, flexible (open-cell) foams, aerosols, solvents, feedstock, tobacco expansion and other miscellaneous applications. She then repeated that it is likely that there has been a resumption of newly produced CFC-11 usage in closed-cell foams and stated that this will result in a combination of immediate CFC-11 emissions from foam installation and CFC-11 production and an increase in the foam banks, from which CFC-11 will be released over time.
    13. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni then commented on the technical and economic factors could have facilitated reversion to CFC-11 in closed-cell foams including Increased demand for closed-cell foams for insulation, reduced availability of HCFC-141b due to the phase-out, price increases of HCFC-141b and prices of HFCs, and finally that reversion from other fluorocarbons to CFC-11 in closed-cell foam manufacture can be made with technical ease.
    14. Ms. Walter-Terrinoni went on to say that mislabelling of polyol blends for foams could facilitate unintended usage and international trade specifying that parties use and/or import polyol blends labelled as containing HCFC-141b and HFCs. A5 parties import up to 7,500 tonnes per year HCFC-141b in polyol blends. She clarified that polyol blends could be mislabelled, intentionally or unintentionally, and then used by a recipient without knowing which blowing agent is actually in the blend resulting in CFC-11 emissions during foam installation in parties receiving CFC-11 polyol blends without their knowledge.
    15. Ms. Tope stated that the Task Force estimates that 40,000 to 70,000 tonnes per year of CFC-11 production is required to account for the unexpected emissions in each year from 2013 to 2017. She noted that some of this CFC-11 production will be emitted during the production process, some during the manufacture of closed-cell foams, while the remainder will be banked in foams, from which CFC-11 will be released over time.
    16. Ms. Tope explained that the Task Force considered the technical and economic feasibility of 22 potential CFC-11 production routes. She stated that one of the most likely routes used to produce the CFC-11 is carbon tetrachloride to CFC-11/12 produced on a large-scale in an existing HCFC-22 and/or an HFC-32 liquid-phase plant. She indicted that for these types of plants, spare capacity to produce CFC-11 on a large-scale would have been available in the period after 2012, where utilisation of spare capacity lowers total production costs. She added that another likely route is carbon tetrachloride to CFC-11 on micro-scale plants, which have capacities in the 100 to 2,000 tonnes per year range, using minimal equipment to make low-grade CFC-11 for foam blowing use.  She noted that while some micro-scale plants could be contributing to production, it seems unlikely that a large number of micro-scale plants would be solely responsible for the estimated annual CFC-11 production of 40,000 to 70,000 tonnes per year. She stated that a range of between 45,000 to 120,000 tonnes per year of carbon tetrachloride would be required to supply the estimated 40,000 to 70,000 tonnes per year of estimated CFC-11 production, depending on the proportion of co-produced CFC-12. She noted that the carbon tetrachloride quantity required for CFC-11 production is expected to be at the lower end of this range if, as expected, the objective is to make CFC-11 to supply closed-cell foams. She explained that the quantity of CFC-12 co-produced with CFC-11 is dependent on the production route chosen, and how the plant is set up and operated, and that with CFC-11 as the expected target chemical, the range of CFC-12 co-production is up to 30% of total CFC-11/12 production for the most likely production routes. She noted that the Task Force had modelled estimated bottom-up emissions of CFC-12 but that the assumptions used to model CFC-12 emissions indicated high underlying uncertainty, and therefore estimates of bottom-up CFC-12 emissions and comparison against atmospheric-derived CFC-12 emissions are inconclusive. She outlined the possible fate of co‑produced CFC-12, which includes destruction by thermal oxidation, usage as a refrigerant and/or aerosol propellant, usage as a feedstock, and/or release to the atmosphere.
    17. In concluding, she reiterated that pre-2010 CFC-11 production and usage is unlikely to explain the increased CFC-11 emissions; newly produced CFC-11 usage in closed-cell foams is likely to explain the unexpected CFC-11 emissions; newly produced CFC-11 usage in closed-cell foams will result in an immediate increase of CFC-11 emissions and a long-term increase of emissions from CFC‑11 foam banks; the expected emissions from the pre-2010 CFC-11 foam banks in Northeast Asia are insufficient to account for the atmospheric-derived emissions from eastern mainland China that are reported in Rigby et al.; an estimated 40,000 to 70,000 tonnes/year CFC-11 production would be required to supply the post-2010 foams usage and other associated emissions; and 45,000 to 120,000 tonnes/year carbon tetrachloride would be required to supply the estimated CFC-11 production, which is likely to be at lower end of that range.

          C.       Final assessment by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee of critical-use nominations for methyl bromide      

    1. On behalf of TEAP, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee co-chairs, Marta Pizano and Ian Porter presented an overview of the trends and outcomes for the CUN nominations submitted in 2019 for use in 2020 and 2021.
    2. In opening the presentation, Ms. Pizano provided an overview of the stock amounts reported by four parties at the end of 2018 (<1.0 t), indicating that only parties requesting CUNs are required to report on stocks, therefore total stocks are unknown. As in past opportunities, MBTOC did not adjust CUE recommendations to account for stocks, this being a decision to be taken by parties.
    3. She then provided an overview of the outcome of the final assessments for CUE recommendations of MB (t) for 2020 and 2021, showing that of the six requests for CUNs for a total amount of 111.441t, MBTOC was recommending 89.161 t.
    4. For the Australian strawberry runners the full amount nominated by the party of 28.98 t was recommended, as the party provided further substantive justification for needing this amount.  MBTOC acknowledged that the party provided a transition plan for phasing-out MB, based on methyl iodide (MI), showing that if registration and availability is achieved by 2021, then the Australian Government will reduced the nominated amount by 50%.
    5. Co-chair Ian Porter then indicated that MBTOC recommended the full amount of 5.261 t for the Canadian strawberry runners in 2019. He stated that regulations unique to PEI prohibit the use of all feasible chemical fumigant options, and that soilless culture, i.e. substrates, are the only option presently suitable for this nomination. Also, after the OEWG, the party had provided information justifying that substrates were not yet suitable for adoption, so the reduction made in the interim recommendation could not be met.  The reason was that yields of nursery plants grown in substrates were delayed by 3 weeks compared to field grown plants and this was presently uneconomical.
    6. Interim recommendations presented at the OEWG for CUNs requested by Argentina for the tomato and strawberry for 2020 had been accepted by the party and therefore were not reassessed. For strawberries, the nomination was reduced based on a dosage that met MBTOCs standard presumption for the uptake of barrier films. For tomatoes, the final recommendation was 12.79 t and for strawberry fruit production was 7.83 t.
    7. Mr. Porter then indicated that the interim recommendations for pests in commodities and structures for 2019 from South Africa (RSA) had received no request for reassessment by the party after the OEWG and that these amounts were now final recommendations. For mills, MBTOC recommended 0.3 t, based on a reduction for allowance of only one fumigation per year at a 20 g/m3 dose rate for the three mills nominated, to allow time for adoption of integrated pest management practices and sulfuryl fluoride, now a registered alternative.  For houses, MBTOC recommended a 15% reduction based on adoption of heat as a key alternative.
    8. In closing the presentation, Mr. Porter reminded the parties about the timelines for submission of CUNs in 2020, as required under Decision Dec XVI/6 1, bis.

              D.       Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on the cost and availability of low-global-warming-potential technologies that maintain/enhance energy efficiency

      1. Ms. Hélène Rochat, co-chair of the energy efficiency task force (EETF), presented the EETF report prepared for the MOP 31. Ms. Hélène Rochat began by elaborating the mandate in sub‑paragraph XXX of decision XXX/5, which requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) “to prepare a report on the cost and availability of low-global-warming-potential technologies and equipment that maintain or enhance energy efficiency, inter alia, covering various refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump sectors, in particular domestic air-conditioning and commercial refrigeration, taking into account geographical regions, including countries with high‑ambient‑temperature conditions”. The final report built on the preliminary report presented in the 41st OEWG in July, taking into account questions from parties and discussion in the margins. Ms. Rochat presented the list of the 20 members of the task force and noted that 60% of the task force were from A5 Parties and 30% were female. The report had 5 chapters; Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2 Availability (Lead Mr. Bassam Elassaad), Chapter 3 Cost (lead Dr. Omar Abdelaziz), Chapter 4 Markets (lead Dr Gabrielle Dreyfus), and Chapter 5 Summary. The chapter lead author presented their own chapter.
      2. Mr. Bassam Elassaad started by defining “availability” in terms of presence in the different regions and climatic zones of the world. The report did not cover “Not-in-Kind” (NIK) technologies as they were not part of the EETF mandate, and they have recently been reviewed in the RTOC assessment report. Mr. Elassaad presented updated tables showing the availability of technologies, with more detail on countries and regions. He concluded that medium and low GWP refrigerants for energy efficient appliances are widely available, while the products using these refrigerants are available to varying degrees. He noted that research & development (R&D) to increase energy efficiency (EE) is focusing on lower GWP technologies, although some development is still taking place on the high GWP HFCs. There is no new research and development to increase the EE of HCFCs as these are already phased-out in many countries and being phased-out in the remainder. The availability of components to build AC products, like variable speed compressors and microchannel condensers, was also discussed. For commercial refrigeration products, energy efficiency is determined by equipment design and the majority of technical options for improved energy consumption are currently in use and do not depend on the refrigerant being used. Mr. Elassaad presented novel findings of the PRAHA-1 and PRAHA-2 projects that assessed air conditioner performance in HAT regions. He finished by describing a project on transcritical CO2 systems for commercial refrigeration in Jordan which has been shown to significantly improve EE.
      3. Mr. Omar Abdelaziz presented on the capital and operating costs associated with the conversion towards energy efficient and low-GWP technologies. He indicated that the EETF force has identified the required additional capital and operating costs to convert manufacturing lines for ACs to accommodate transition to low GWP refrigerants, whilst improving EE at the same time. He then presented a table containing detailed information on the range of capital costs associated with conversion of a typical manufacturing line (~100,000 units/year) for a lower GWP room air conditioner with higher energy efficiency. The conversion cost to accommodate low GWP refrigerants was in the range USD 300,000 – 535,000, with an additional USD 1,000,000 – 2,000,000 to accommodate microchannel heat exchangers, for a total of USD 1.3 to 2 million. He noted that smaller diameter tubes and microchannel heat exchangers can reduce refrigerant charge, improve system efficiency and enable equipment to meet safety standards. Mr. Abdelaziz summarized the availability, potential energy efficiency improvement, and impact on product cost. He showed that using a variable speed compressor can improve the system efficiency by up to 30% but would result in 20% increase in unit cost. On the other hand, microchannel heat exchangers may improve system efficiency by up to 15% with no impact on the unit cost. He noted that microchannel heat exchangers are especially known for the impact the have on the refrigerant charge reduction of up to 40%. Finally, Mr. Abdelaziz discussed the concept of life cycle cost analysis for policy making, presenting a case study from the U.S. Department of Energy during the rulemaking process for the minimum efficiency performance standard for self-contained commercial refrigeration. This case study depicted the correlation between initial cost, performance, and life cycle cost, and demonstrated that the lowest life cycle cost of equipment is not necessarily the most efficient equipment.
      4. Ms. Gabrielle Dreyfus presented the Chapter on the role of markets and policies in determining the availability of energy-efficient refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment containing low-GWP refrigerants. She stated that policies shape the market by creating an enabling environment for market development. Manufacturers respond to positive policy signals that promote energy efficiency and refrigerant transition by investing in research and development. She highlighted that a simultaneous transition toward lower-GWP and higher energy-efficiency equipment, reduces overall costs to manufacturer for research and development and capital investment cycles. In contrast, weak or absent energy-efficiency policies are associated with market dominance of inefficient and HCFC technologies in some regions.
      5. She observed that the price that the consumer pays does not correlate well with energy efficiency, but with other characteristics, such as brand reputation influencing the retail price to a greater extent. Global experience in regional and institutional cooperation has demonstrated benefits in speed, scale, spending, and sustainability that could be applicable to improving energy efficiency during HFC phase-down. She noted that if this principle were expanded so that governments adopted common standards and metrics, where markets and climates are similar, the demand for products meeting those standards would go up, increasing scale and availability, and reducing price. For these reasons it would be important for developing countries to develop regional strategies to improve EE alongside regulatory support to move to low GWP refrigerants. Individual developing countries that have weak or absent MEPs, run the risk of importing low EE and high GWP AC equipment (“environmental dumping”).
      6. Ms Helene Rochat then summarised the EETF overall findings by stating that countries can use market policies and incentives to drive up energy efficiency during the phasing down of high‑GWP HFCs in commercial refrigeration and air conditioning. This will bring environmental and economic benefits. The principles presented apply to other RACHP sectors as well. She concluded that international and regional cooperation will be important for market transformation and that A5 Parties could benefit from capacity building, support for market transformation including MEPS and/or labelling.

                 E.       Initial assessment by the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel of volatile fluoroorganic and related compounds found in the Arctic

        1. Dr. Paul A. Newman, Prof. John Pyle, Prof. Bonfils Safari (Scientific Assessment Panel co‑chairs) with Dr. Helen Tope and Dr. Keiichi Ohnishi (Technology and Economics Assessment Panel, MCTOC co-chairs) gave a presentation on the “New evidence for five synthetic chemicals reported by the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU).”
        2. The Norwegian government brought to the attention of the Parties (under Decision IX/24) the NILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research 2018 report revealing the detection of five human‑produced chemicals in air by filter-sampling at the Zeppelin station, Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard, Norway (79˚N, 12˚E). This report, “Screening Programme 2017 – AMAP Assessment compounds” (hereafter referred to as NILU [2018]) was funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency. It is a follow-up study during a summer 2017 campaign and followed from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), which had “identified 25 chemicals with physicochemical properties that raised concerns with respect to Arctic environments”.
        3. These five detected chemicals are:
          • PFPHP           Perfluoroperhydrophenanthrene (Vitreon, Flutec PP 11), CAS 306-91-2, C14F24
          • PFTBA           Tris(perfluorobutyl)-amine (FC-43), CAS 311-89-7, C12F27N
          • TCHFB          1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorohexafluorobutane, CAS 375-45-1, C4Cl4F6, CFC-316lbb
          • DCTFP           3,5-Dichloro-2,4,6-trifluoropyridine, CAS 1737-93-5, C5Cl2F3N
          • DCTCB          1,2-Dichloro-3-(trichloromethyl)benzene, CAS 84613-97-8, C7H3Cl5
        4. In the SAP/TEAP presentation, information was provided on available chemical properties of these compounds, as well as usages and estimates of market size.
        5. The presentation summarized that:
        6. The five chemicals detected by NILU [2018] (PFPHP, PFTBA, TCHFB, DCTFP and DCTCB) occur in the Arctic atmosphere at very low concentrations (e.g., the observed 0.51 ppq value of TCHFB is about 450,000 times smaller than the 2017 global CFC-11 mean value of 229 ppt).
        7. PFTBA is a powerful GHG, while the other four are likely to be powerful GHGs. Three (TCHFB, DCTFP, and DCTCB) are ODSs. However, at their current very low atmospheric concentrations, these substances are not currently threats to the ozone layer and are likely to have a miniscule impact on climate.
        8. The measurement techniques provide only lower-limit quantitative estimates with large uncertainties, and the NILU [2018] report has not yet appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. These data therefore cannot be used for future trend studies.
        9. NILU researchers are currently refining their observations to fill the gap in sampling and measurement of chemicals with vapor pressure between the very volatile greenhouse gases and the classical semi-volatiles like PCBs and chlorinated pesticides. Analyses of some of these chemicals (PTPHP, TCHFB, and DCTFP) for their atmospheric properties are in progress, but are not presently published.

                   F.       Synthesis of the 2018 quadrennial assessment reports of the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel

          1. The presentation which summarized the synthesis of the 2018 Assessment Reports of the EEAP, TEAP and SAP was presented on behalf of those panels by Professor Nigel Paul, Ms. Bella Maranion and Professor John Pyle, Co-Chairs of the EEAP, TEAP and SAP, respectively. The Synthesis Report can be found at UNEP/OzL.Pro.31/8 and the presentation is available on the Ozone Secretariat web portal.
          2. The report covered the current status of the Montreal Protocol: its successes, its challenges and the prospects for the future.
          3. The successful phaseout of ODS in many sectors (foams, refrigeration, medical, aerosols, solvents, laboratory and analytical uses, agriculture, and fire suppression) was described, including its consequent impact on the continued decline of ODS in the atmosphere. Recovery of stratospheric ozone is now observed in various regions of the atmosphere.
          4. Some current challenges were discussed. A very important issue is the unexpected increase in emissions of CFC-11, in part, at least, arising from east Asia. Work from TEAP and SAP (including new work since the publication of their 2018 Assessment reports), highlights the significant discrepancy between the emissions expected on the basis of compliance with the Montreal Protocol and the emissions derived from measurements of CFC-11 in the atmosphere.
          5. Other issues which were highlighted included on-going uses of halon 1301 (civil aviation, oil and gas, military), which will require halon beyond when it is projected to be available from the existing bank, as well as the continued QPS use of methyl bromide.
          6. The benefit to climate already achieved by the Montreal Protocol’s phase out of ODS, many of which are also potent greenhouse gases, is well known. The future benefit of the Kigali Amendment, amounting to about 0.4°C avoided warming this century, was presented.
          7. By protecting the stratospheric ozone layer and the climate, and by stimulating technical innovation across multiple sectors, the Montreal Protocol is contributing to the delivery of many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These include SDG 2 (Zero hunger), SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) and multiple SDGs relating to environmental protection and sustainable economic growth.
          8. Assuming compliance with the Montreal Protocol recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer to its 1980 levels is expected in the coming decades, with recovery over Antarctica projected for late this century.
          9. The continued success of the Montreal Protocol in protecting stratospheric ozone, and consequent benefits for the SDGs, depends on continued compliance with the Protocol provisions.
          10. In addition to the Synthesis Report, the SAP also reported on the 2019 Antarctic Ozone Hole. The 2019 hole was the smallest since 1983. This small hole primarily resulted from unusual stratospheric weather patterns with higher temperatures over Antarctica. The SAP noted that this year’s unusual conditions are not caused by climate change, but that the Antarctic ozone hole will continue until late in this century because of the continued high levels of ODS in the atmosphere.
          11. The presentation also included information on the recently published “Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2018 Update.” The 20Q&A document is the outreach and communication document of the Scientific Assessment Panel. The motivation behind this scientific publication is to tell the story of ozone depletion, ozone-depleting substances and the success of the Montreal Protocol. Electronic files of the 20 Questions/Answers booklet can be found at:

        * The summaries are presented as received, without formal editing.