1. Before starting the discussions, the co-chairs clarified that the mandate provided by the Meeting of the Parties was to continue the deliberations of the discussion group on issues pertaining to the management of HFCs using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms. During the thirty-third meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, that group had been tasked with discussing, without prejudging any decisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the following matters:

(a) Issues on management of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms, including legal, technical and financial aspects;

(b) Possible processes to address legal, technical and financial aspects;

(c) Identifying options to establish a relationship between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol.

2. The group was also tasked with making progress on the discussion, including consideration of the outcomes of recent international forums, and with reporting the outcomes of the discussions to the plenary, including options for advancing the discussion in 2014, to be reflected in the report of the meeting.

3. To facilitate a structured discussion, the group agreed, first, to identify and discuss options for advancing discussions in 2014 relating to technical aspects of management of HFCs using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms and processes to address such technical aspects, based on the outcome of previous discussions.

4. With regard to the technical challenges relating to alternatives in high-population-density urban areas and high ambient temperatures, as well as the availability of alternatives in different sectors and subsectors, the following options were suggested:

(a) To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to further study and provide information to the parties, taking into account their specific circumstances, on, among others:

(i) Variations in availability of alternatives in sectors and subsectors;

(ii) Equipment design and its cost implications to address technical challenges in order to assist parties in the selection of alternatives;

(iii) Update on the availability of alternatives, including in regions with high ambient temperatures;

(v) Identification of safe, economically viable, environmentally friendly and technically proven alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and HFCs;

(vi) Energy efficiency of alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and HFCs;

(vii) In-depth study by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on alternatives available in the air-conditioning sector that meet requirements with regard to flammability, toxicity and costs of those alternatives;

(b) To recognize different strategies for the management of HFCs, including measures for containment and conversion to alternatives, including not-in-kind technologies and equipment design;

(c) To recognize the challenges of different parties with regard to the availability of climate-friendly alternatives, depending on their national circumstances and the importance of being able to select from a variety of technologies;

(d) To share with parties information on availability of alternatives, domestic experience with management of HFCs and relevant international initiatives, such as bilateral cooperation, regional cooperation and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants;

(e) To recognize and further discuss or study the need to revise the international standards for the introduction of low-global-warming-potential technologies while at the same time ensuring safety, in particular for hydrocarbon technology, and to discuss how issues relating to the evaluation and transparency of these standards can be addressed;

(f) To consider the need for training in the servicing practice and safety of low‑global‑warming-potential alternatives in the servicing sector in stage II HCFC phase-out management plans;

(g) To encourage the Executive Committee to approve further Multilateral Fund demonstration projects to test potential low-global-warming-potential technologies, in particular for high-ambient-temperature regions;

(h) To consider actions to facilitate technology transfer in order to promote low‑global‑warming-potential technologies in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;

(i) To encourage reducing production of high-global-warming-potential HFCs;

(j) To consider options to promote alternatives that have both low-global-warming potential and are energy efficient;

(k) To provide parties with a compilation of information on existing alternatives and ongoing activities to develop alternatives;

(l) To start a focused and more in-depth discussion on the information on alternatives provided by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in the context of an additional meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in 2014, addressing the technical, financial and legal aspects of management of HFCs using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms, and a workshop in the margins of the Working Group in 2014;

(m) To ensure that scientific and technical experience from parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and their specific circumstances are taken into account in the information and discussion on availability of alternatives;

(n) To organize regional workshops on the availability of alternatives;

(o) To encourage domestic measures to manage HFCs;

5. The group also addressed broader technical aspects relating to the feasibility of an HFC phase‑down approach to managing HFCs using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms, based on the analysis of the domestic situation of one party. It was recognized that the main technical challenges of conversion to alternatives appeared to be in the air-conditioning sector. The party illustrated how the challenges of the availability of alternatives could be addressed in a phase-down schedule that would take into account the alternatives available for different sectors and subsectors and showed that it would provide a signal to the market to develop alternatives for sectors where alternatives were not available in the short term. Furthermore, it was explained that a phase-down approach under the Protocol and its mechanisms would provide a delayed schedule for parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, as well as financial support from the Multilateral Fund to assist parties in technology conversion.

6. Second, the group discussed the financial aspects of management of HFCs using the Protocol and its mechanisms and options for advancing discussions in 2014, based on the outcome of previous discussions.

7. With regard to the financial aspects, the group discussed the following matters:

(a) How a phase-down approach under the Montreal Protocol to manage HFCs could provide technical and financial assistance to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, building on the institutions and experience of the Multilateral Fund, including national ozone units, in providing financial and technical assistance in phasing out ozone-depleting substances and at the same time achieving co-benefits;

(b) How a phase-down approach under the Montreal Protocol to manage HFCs could address both the production and consumption of HFCs as alternatives to HCFCs, as well as production and consumption of HFCs not relating to the phasing out of HCFCs under the Protocol;

(c) How using the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund to phase down HFCs would support the statement by the Group of 20 and the objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol thereto;

(d) The extent to which the Multilateral Fund contributed to updating technologies, building capacity and improving the performance and efficiency of equipment and production processes;

(e) The possibility of providing financial assistance through the provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for HFC emissions;

(f) The suitability of the Montreal Protocol and its financial mechanism to address intentionally produced substances, such as HFCs, through production and consumption controls, compared with climate-related financial mechanisms that address emissions, including the Global Environment Facility and the Clean Development Mechanism;

(g) The effective use of available financial resources;

(h) Issues to address relating to the financial mechanism for a phase-down approach under the Montreal Protocol for the management of HFCs, including on the coordination between the Meeting of the Parties and the Executive Committee, technology transfer and patents, liability costs and the difference between the actual costs and the incremental costs of conversion to low‑global‑warming-potential alternatives in the light of the difference between a phase-down of HFCs and a phase-out of ozone-depleting substances;

(i) The adequacy of funds provided for institutional strengthening and HCFC phase-out;

(j) The capability of parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to provide additional funding to the Multilateral Fund for an HFC phase-down approach under the Montreal Protocol in order to assist parties so operating through the same financial mechanism;

(k) The differing views of parties on sufficiency of financial resources to provide assistance to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;

(l) The challenge of an HFC phase-down approach with regard to the availability of alternatives and the related economic and financial impact, including on industry;

(m) The need for a clear commitment by parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to providing additional financial resources to assist developing countries in the case of an HFC phase-down approach under the Montreal Protocol;

(n) The extent to which policies of the Multilateral Fund should be revised in the light of providing sufficient funding for an HFC phase-down, including policies on baselines, cut-off dates, second conversions, eligibility, incremental operating costs and export to parties operating under paragraph 2 of the Protocol;

(o) The extent of the growth of HFCs.

8. The following options were suggested to advance discussions in 2014 relating to financial aspects of management of HFCs using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms:

(a) To discuss a comprehensive financial mechanism, taking into account the experience of the Multilateral Fund, including on technology transfer;

(b) To agree to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide (in the replenishment study, for example) estimates on the additional costs and environmental benefits of a scenario for an HFC phase-down approach under the Montreal Protocol, taking into account the specific circumstances and challenges of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, as an information basis for further discussion, without pre-empting any decision;

(c) To organize an extraordinary meeting between the thirty-fourth meeting of the Open‑ended Working Group and the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties to address the issues raised by various parties.

9. Third, the group addressed legal aspects of management of HFCs using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms and the link between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol, as well as options for advancing discussions.

10. With regard to the legal aspects, the group discussed the following:

(a) The importance for some parties of Article 2 of the Vienna Convention, which provides that parties shall cooperate in harmonizing appropriate policies associated with controlling ozone-depleting substances and that that can include managing substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons and HCFCs, such as HFCs, and the views of other parties that HFCs cannot be addressed under Article 2 (b);

(b) Some parties noted the effect of Article 3 of the North American amendment proposal, which states that the amendment would not exempt HFCs from the coverage of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol thereto;

(c) Other parties noted articles 2, 5 and 7 of the Kyoto Protocol, which excludes substances that are controlled under the Montreal Protocol;

(d) The importance of political will in addressing the issues relating to phasing down the production and consumption of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol;

(e) The declarations of political leaders at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and by the Group of 20;

(f) The need of some parties for a clear signal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change before discussing a phase-down of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms;

(g) The extent to which a phase-down approach using the Montreal Protocol to manage HFCs is complementary to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

(h) The view of some parties that efforts should be made to harmonize legal texts.

11. The following options were suggested to advance discussions relating to legal aspects and the link between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol, including options to advance the discussions in 2014:

(a) To encourage cooperation between the Montreal Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol thereto;

(b) To organize a joint workshop between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol to address cross-cutting issues, which could, for example, be held before the thirty-fourth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group;

(c) To cooperate to send a political signal under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to the Montreal Protocol;

(d) To make available more time in the meetings of the Montreal Protocol for a focused discussion on issues relating to technical and financial aspects of a phase-down approach to managing HFCs using the Montreal Protocol and its mechanisms, including in workshops and an additional meeting of the Open-ended Working Group.