Skip to main content

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

       A.       Presentation by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee on final recommendations for critical-use exemptions for 2017 and 2018

  1. On behalf of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, the Co-Chairs of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, Mohammed Besri, Ian Porter and Marta Pizano presented an overview of the trends and outcomes for critical use nominations submitted in 2017 for use in 2018 and 2019.
  2. In opening the presentation, Mr. Besri reported that parties nominating critical use exemptions are requested under decision Ex.I/4, adopted at the First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol of Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, held in Montreal from 24 to 26 March 2004, to submit information on stocks. The quantities of methyl bromide “on hand” at the end of 2016 were presented. He said that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee had not reduced its recommended amount of methyl bromide in consideration of stocks held by the party. He added that information on stocks has been reported by some countries but not by others.
  3. He then said that since 2005 there had been a progressive downward trend in the officially reported amounts of methyl bromide requested for critical use nominations by all parties for use on soils, structures and commodities. He presented reduction trends in amounts approved/nominated by parties for critical use from 2005 to 2018 for all applications.
  4. Mr. Besri reported that quantities of methyl bromide nominated by Argentina for tomato and strawberry production had decreased from 2015 to 2018. The same trends had been observed for China (ginger in protected and open field production) and South Africa (mills and houses). He added that Mexico had not presented any critical-use nomination since 2016 due to the use of methyl bromide stocks. He showed that the total amount of methyl bromide requested in critical-use nominations from all parties had decreased by 33 per cent between 2015 and 2018, from about 450 t to about 300 t.
  5. Mr. Porter then provided an overview of the outcomes from the assessment of critical-use nominations submitted in 2017. He stated that five countries still applied for 297.9 t of methyl bromide under critical use in eight sectors. Final recommendations for Argentina (tomato 47.7 t; strawberry fruit 29.0 t), China (ginger open field 16.88 t; ginger protected 18.36 t) and South Africa
    (mills 2.9 t; houses 42.75 t) had not changed from those recommended at the thirty-ninth meeting of the Open‑ended Working Group, however those from Australia and Canada had been reassessed after further information had been provided by the parties after the thirty-ninth meeting.
  6. For Australian strawberry runners in 2019, the full amount of 28.98 t was recommended. Although the nomination aligned with decision IX/6, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee continued to encourage the party to review regulations and other hurdles that constrained the adoption of alternatives. This would ensure that together with research and development presently under way a successful phaseout plan could be implemented.
  7. For Canadian strawberry runners in 2018, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee recommended the full amount of 5.261 t; however, there were continued concerns about chloropicrin (Pic) being able to be used in methyl bromide/Pic mixtures, but not when it was applied alone.
  8. Both nominations from Argentina (strawberry fruit 45.3 t; tomatoes 75.4 t) were reduced to meet the standard presumptions for methyl bromide dosage rates used with barrier films over a three‑year adoption period. A further 10 per cent reduction was made for uptake of available alternatives. For the strawberry nomination, the party was urged to consider practices that improve the likelihood of adoption of available alternatives (i.e., 1,3-D/Pic) and for the tomato nomination the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee did not accept an increase in the nominated amount from the critical use exemption approved last year.
  9. For the nomination from China for open field ginger of 74.617 t, the interim recommendation was reduced for use of a rate that met the standard presumptions for use with barrier films.
  10. Mr. Porter finalized the presentation by summarizing issues and the work plan for future critical-use nomination requests. He stated that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee was aware of uses of methyl bromide for which no critical-use nomination was being sought. Also, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee felt that continued methyl bromide supply for critical‑use nominations was in itself becoming a barrier to technological change and consideration of alternatives.
  11. China had indicated its intention for 2017 to be the last year of critical-use nominations.
  12. In closing the presentation, Mr. Porter stressed that any nominations submitted in 2018 must be submitted to the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee by 24 January 2018.

           B.       Supplemental report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel replenishment task force

  1. The Co-Chairs of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel replenishment task force on the funding requirement for the replenishment for the triennium 2018–2020, Lambert Kuijpers, Bella Maranion and Shiqiu Zhang, gave a presentation in plenary on the supplemental report of the task force, which further assessed a number of parameters in the funding requirement for the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for 2018–2020.
  2. Ms. Zhang, Co-Chair of the task force, started the presentation with a description of the mandate given by decision XXVIII/5, which requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report to enable parties to decide on the appropriate level of the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the triennium 2018–2020. She then described the requests elaborated by the contact group that was set up during the thirty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, which required the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to elaborate on specific groups of elements in a supplementary report for the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Parties.
  3. She noted that the requests from the thirty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group had been grouped and then responded by the replenishment task force study, including the elaboration on paragraph 3 of the terms of reference as expressed in decision XXVIII/5 on indicative figures for any additional resources that would be needed to further encourage the use of low‑global‑warming‑potential (GWP) or zero-GWP alternatives; the cost effectiveness figures in tonnes, ODP-tonnes and CO2 equivalent; the distinction between costs associated with activities related to hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFC); the scenario comparing previously approved projects with business plan estimates on an annual basis in relation to determining uncertainty for planned activities; and the recent Executive Committee decisions.
  4. Mr. Kuijpers then continued with the presentation. Regarding the adjustment of the plan to approve funding, Mr. Kuijpers noted that for the period 2005–2016, the average percentage of funding for the total of approvals was 83.2 per cent of the funding for the total of the planned activities from the business plan. The average funding agreed by the Executive Committee for each activity was therefore on average 16.8 per cent lower than funding estimated in the business plan. By taking the differences between planned and approved funding for the years 2005 through 2016, the calculated uncertainty range was on average +/- 13.5 per cent. Using that uncertainty value, the total funding for HCFC phase-out management plan (HPMP) activities was, in principle, approved at a value in the range of about 70 to 97 per cent of the funding estimated for planned activities. When taking into account the impact of approvals of the seventy-ninth meeting of the Executive Committee on (the adjusted) planned HPMP activities, the funding was reduced from $97.1 million to $74.1 million for the triennium 2018–2020 for non-low-volume-consuming countries; and the funding was reduced by $0.23 million since that amount was moved to the approved funding amount for 2017 for low-volume-consuming countries. The approved HPMP activities implied that the funding requirement increased from $289.4 million to $296.2 million for non-low-volume-consuming countries; there was no change for low-volume-consuming countries because some planned funding became approved funding for 2017, which was outside the triennium 20182020. Mr. Kuijpers concluded that as a result of the decisions from the seventy-ninth meeting of the Executive Committee, based on the adjusted planned activities, the total funding requirement for HPMPs (excluding any HPMPs stage III) had decreased by $12.5 million, from $388.4 million to $375.9 million (for the triennium 2018–2020).
  5. He noted an estimated $0–$10 million for additional HPMP demonstration projects and
    $13.5 million to $20.2 million for HFC enabling activities (including demonstration projects) may be needed for additional resources to further encourage the use of low-GWP or zero-GWP alternatives. Deferring HPMP stage III activities to the triennium 2021–2023 would reduce the funding requirement presented in the May 2017 report ($0–70.95 million) to zero.
  6. Mr. Kuijpers noted that in the May 2017 report, the replenishment task force assumed equal funding tranches for the 14 years for the Chinese HCFC production phase-out management plan (HPPMP) in the period 2017–2030, leading to a funding requirement of $65.62 million ($21.87 million for each of the three years) for the triennium 2018–2020. This assumed a first tranche of $21.87 million in the year 2017. In considering two funding tranches for the Chinese HPPMP in the triennium 2018–2020, the total funding for the next triennium was estimated at $47.15 million or $51.04 million, depending on when the approval decision would be taken and on how the funding tranches would be specified.
  7. Mr. Kuijpers further elaborated on the financial implications of a number of changes for the total funding requirement range, starting with the total funding requirement determined in the May 2017 report, the certain activities are subtracted, resulting in a different total funding requirement range, and this was followed by a number of steps or scenarios for HPMP stage II activities, with the average value for HPMP funding and the decrease in comparison to the May 2017 HPMP funding.
  8. Ms. Bella Maranion then continued the presentation and presented the cost-effectiveness values of HPMPs (including agency support costs). She mentioned that an average (country-weighted) cost-effectiveness value had been calculated based on the ODP-tonnes approvals for a representative number of non-low-volume-consuming countries (where the approvals usually concerned one, or a mix of two or three HCFCs). This value was $5.18 per kg of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) for non‑low‑volume-consuming countries when including China, and $5.79 per kg ODS when excluding China. The calculated cost-effectiveness value of a representative sample of low-volume-consuming countries was $9.23 per kg ODS. In climate terms, the cost-effectiveness value was $3.75 t CO2-eq. for non-low-volume-consuming countries when including China, and $5.05 t CO2-eq. when excluding China. For a representative sample of low-volume-consuming countries, it was $7.08 t CO2-eq.
  9. Ms. Maranion discussed that the Compliance Assistance Programme funding (including support costs) in the May 2017 report was estimated at $34.8 million for the triennium 2018–2020, based on an annual 3 per cent increase. CAP funding for the triennium 2018–2020 would be $32.8 million with a zero per cent increase per annum, and $36.9 million with a 6 per cent increase per annum, i.e., each 3 per cent increase in CAP funding would add about $2 million to the total funding requirement.
  10. She further noted that the replenishment task force took the approach of considering two categories of funding for HFC phase-down enabling activities, i.e., both non-investment activities and investment projects. In the period 2018–2020, the primary funding for enabling activities for non‑investment projects would be project preparation, including preparation of proposals for potential demonstration projects, at an amount of $13.5 million to $20.2 million for non-investment activities, and at $8.0 million to 24.0 million for investment projects.
  11. Regarding the HFC-23 mitigation, Ms. Maranion said that the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-ninth meeting had requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel replenishment task force to develop a scenario involving the closure of HCFC-22 production plants, with or without existing incineration facilities for mitigating HFC-23 emissions. Funding for the closure of HCFC-22 swing plants was currently not eligible under the HCFC guidelines. Because of lack of guidance and of a decision for compensation by the Executive Committee, the replenishment task force had been unable to develop a scenario.
  12. Since the Executive Committee at its eightieth meeting had taken a number of decisions that had consequences for the 2018–2020 funding requirement, Ms. Maranion said that the replenishment task force had assessed the various issues involved. Those decisions increased all total funding requirement values for the scenarios in the supplement report by $53.48 million, owing to (1) the HPPMP of China, with three tranches in 2018–2020 implying an increase of $19.72 million; (2) approved funding tranches: an increase of $35.20 million; less planned funding (now approved): a decrease of $4.30 million; CAP funding 2018–2020: a decrease of $0.89 million; Institutional Strengthening funding planned for 2018–2020, an increase of $3.75 million.

          C.       Report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on information submitted by parties on energy efficiency opportunities in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector

  1. At the preparatory level of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Parties, Roberto Peixoto and Ashley Woodcock, Co-Chairs of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Working Group presented the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Decision XXVIII/3 Working Group Report on Energy Efficiency. Mr. Peixoto began the presentation by reviewing the decision that requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review energy efficiency opportunities in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump (RACHP) sectors related to a transition to climate‑friendly alternatives, including not-in-kind options; invited parties to submit to the Ozone Secretariat by May 2017, on a voluntary basis, relevant information on energy efficiency innovations in the RACHP sectors; and requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess the information submitted by parties and to report thereon to the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Parties. He noted that energy efficiency was a broad topic of major importance with an enormous amount of published literature and information. The working group had identified many relevant, current publications from organizations working on energy efficiency improvements and related topics over many years. The working group had also considered recent Montreal Protocol reports, presentations and submissions from parties. As requested in the decision, Mr. Peixoto explained that the report focused on the specific request of the decision on “energy efficiency opportunities in the RACHP sectors related to a transition to climate-friendly alternatives, including not-in-kind options” and considered the following categories of energy efficiency opportunities: technology opportunities; policy, regulatory and information opportunities; and financial and related incentives.
  2. He noted that as requested by the decision, 19 submissions (including from the European Union and the African Group) had been received. They were of varied scope, and some provided very comprehensive information, including on the development and implementation of national regulations and policies that encouraged or enforced the use of energy efficient equipment; use of utility incentives for promoting efficient energy use as well as the use of energy efficient equipment; other financial incentives to support consumer appliance purchases; support for research and development on system and equipment design; and many examples of projects and case studies on the installation of energy efficient equipment. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had incorporated that information into the report.
  3. Mr. Peixoto indicated that the global refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment installed base included 1.5 billion domestic refrigerators (170 million produced annually), 600 million air conditioners (100 million produced annually) and 700 million mobile air-conditioning systems (70 million produced annually). The demand for RACHP equipment was increasing worldwide, particularly in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 parties owing to factors such as population growth, urbanization, increasing domestic, commercial and automobile air-conditioning use, and for the “cold chain” (bringing food from farm to market). RACHP equipment consumed 17 per cent of electricity worldwide; cities in the tropics reached more than 60 per cent of power generation in the mid-afternoon. The global warming impact of RACHP equipment included 80 per cent indirect impact from electricity use and 20 per cent direct impact from the release of refrigerants (especially with old equipment with high-GWP refrigerants). Options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions included transitioning to low‑GWP refrigerants; reducing energy consumption; increasing energy efficiency; reducing cooling load; and improving maintenance.
  4. Mr. Peixoto discussed some common terms used including “energy efficiency ratio” and “coefficient of performance”, which were used interchangeably; “seasonal energy efficiency ratio”; and “star ratings”. Compared to theoretical maximum efficiency, current RACHP equipment were at 30 to 60 per cent and future technology developments could achieve 70 to 80 per cent; however, going further had proved to be prohibitively expensive. The energy efficiency opportunities in the RACHP sectors included technology opportunities that Mr. Peixoto outlined. He discussed that with regard to refrigerants, small improvements in energy efficiency were possible where there are no changes in design and the options for alternative refrigerants were limited to current classes of chemicals or new blends of those chemicals. Large improvements in energy efficiency for new equipment were possible with better control systems and improved components, many of which were already available and just required application and could help reduce leakage from new equipment. There was an opportunity for energy efficiency improvements in new equipment designs concurrent with the transition to low-GWP refrigerants. He noted some specific technology examples, the most likely for broad adoption being those with improved control and monitoring of systems and variable speed compressors. Mature not‑in-kind cooling technologies occupy small niches of the market (e.g. absorption technologies, thermoelectric refrigeration and air cycle). Magnetic refrigeration for the domestic sector held promise, but the impact on energy efficiency was uncertain. There were examples of district cooling using absorption chillers, cogeneration and trigeneration plants.
  5. Mr. Ashley Woodcock then presented information on policy, regulation and information opportunities, including minimum energy performance standards (MEPS); labelling to help raise consumer awareness; building codes for improved energy efficiency; good practice guidelines for training, maintenance and operation of RACHP to maintain high energy efficiency performance and reduce refrigerant leakage; market mechanisms (e.g., buyers’ club, Government bulk procurement); and legislation for energy savings and energy efficiency by utility and energy distribution companies. With regard to MEPS, they limited the maximum energy consumption of equipment and could be combined with labelling schemes and work to remove products with poor energy efficiency from the market. These benefitted from political and stakeholder commitment and could evolve with innovation as energy efficiency improved. There were opportunities to strengthen MEPS in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5; many parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 did not have MEPS for RACHP in place, or where MEPS were in place they may be set at a lower standard. RACHP equipment had lower energy efficiency in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, so the adoption of strengthened MEPS could drive improved energy efficiency of equipment, which could in turn enable higher MEPS. Access to accredited laboratories was important for effective enforcement of MEPS.
  6. Mr. Woodcock noted the key messages conveyed by the report: that increased energy efficiency had been an important side benefit of the Montreal Protocol through two previous transitions of refrigerants over 30 years; demand for RACHP equipment was increasing rapidly especially in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 where RACHP already consumed ~1/6th of the world’s electricity; there were many opportunities to achieve improvements in energy efficiency during the transition to low-GWP refrigerants. A coordinated domestic transition to low-GWP refrigerants could include a parallel effort on improving energy efficiency of RACHP equipment.

          D.       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. John Pyle, Paul A. Newman, David W. Fahey and Bonfils Safari, Co-Chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel, gave a presentation on the 2018 World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. The Montreal Protocol required that the Scientific Assessment Panel provide the latest information on the state of the ozone layer, the stratosphere and ODS such as chlorofluorocarbons at least every four years. The presentation included a basic update on the progress of the 2018 assessment with a few scientific highlights.
  2. The Scientific Assessment Panel presented basic information on the structure of the 2018 assessment. First, the assessment was composed of six chapters on ozone-depleting substances; hydrofluorocarbons; global stratospheric ozone: past, present and future; polar stratospheric ozone: past, present and future; stratospheric ozone changes and climate; and scenarios and information for policymakers.
  3. As of November 2017, the first draft of the assessment was complete, had undergone a first peer review with over 5,000 individual comments and was under revision. The completed assessment will be delivered in December 2018 along with an executive summary and an updated “Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer”.
  4. The assessment would include updated information that had been requested by the parties. In particular, updated HCFC GWP were requested under the Kigali Amendment. The GWP for the HCFCs with missing values in Annex C had been calculated by Dimitrios Papanastasiou, Paul Marshall and James Burkholder of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States of America and were included in a manuscript being peer reviewed for publication. The comprehensive evaluation of HCFCs, including 274 isomers and stable conformers, would be included in the 2018 assessment.
  5. The Scientific Assessment Panel had also discussed halogenated very short-lived substances (VSLS) that are ozone-depleting substances. Previous assessments had discussed natural and anthropogenic VSLS - ODS with lifetimes of less than about 6 months. Recent studies had focused on chlorinated VSLS, including CH2Cl2 (dichloromethane, DCM) with a lifetime of about 140 days, and CH2ClCH2Cl (1,2-dichloroethane, DCE) with a lifetime of about 65 days. The Panel had estimated that VSLS comprised up to ~ 3.3 per cent of lower stratospheric chlorine, with up to 1.8 per cent from DCM and up to 0.6 per cent from DCE. Those estimates had high uncertainty because of sparse stratospheric observations and variability in VSLS sources. Tropospheric VSLS chlorine concentrations had increased from ~85ppt in 2008 to ~110ppt in 2016. The largest VSLS increases had occurred for DCM, but as noted above, the contribution to total stratospheric chlorine was small. Understanding the role of VSLS emissions in long-term future stratospheric ozone changes remained an open science question.
  6. Total ozone in both polar regions continued to remain below levels observed in the 1970s. Spring Arctic ozone remained below the long-term average, with large depletions occurring every few years (e.g., 2011). Antarctic ozone in October also remained well below the long-term average, but there was recent evidence that ozone levels were increasing. The 2017 Antarctic ozone hole was much weaker than average. However, this small 2017 hole was mainly due to unusual meteorological conditions observed in September 2017.
  7. Finally, the Scientific Assessment Panel showed information on projected levels of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) through the 21st century. The Kigali Amendment control of HFC production and consumption was projected to limit future surface warming from HFCs to less than 0.1C in 2100.

                2.         Environmental Effects Panel

  1. Janet Bornman and Nigel Paul, Co-Chairs of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, presented the annual update and progress towards the quadrennial assessment for 2018. They stressed the importance and complexity of interactions between the effects of changes in stratospheric ozone and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and the effects of climate change.
  2. Ms. Bornman highlighted the important role of the Montreal Protocol in preventing large increases in skin cancers and cataract by UV radiation. However, several types of skin cancers were continuing to increase globally, with a substantial health burden and cost. These increases varied widely with skin type, ethnicity and behavioural response to sun exposure. Those behavioural choices may be influenced by climate change.
  3. Apart from the adverse effects of UV-B radiation (280–315 nm), the beneficial effects of the radiation on human health also needed to be considered because of expected changes from recovery of the stratospheric ozone as well as from climate, which would likely result in variations in UV radiation. Recent evidence suggested that low doses of solar UV radiation increases vitamin D without accumulating DNA damage, which would be a useful behavioural pattern to improve vitamin D status while minimizing the damaging effects of UV-B radiation on health.
  4. Apart from the focus on the effects from exposure to UV-B radiation, recent studies on ecosystems in the southern hemisphere were showing that the large ozone-driven changes in climate were increasing precipitation in some areas while causing drought and high temperatures in other areas. These changes have both positive consequences, such as increased plant growth, improved animal survival, and negative consequences, such as fires.
  5. Co-Chair Nigel Paul went on to further highlight and assess some of the modifying influences of UV radiation and the interactive effects of climate change on ecosystems and materials. For example, stress tolerance and the timing of crop ripening were altered by warmer temperatures and droughts that coincided with seasonal maxima in UV-B radiation. Increased exposure to UV radiation could also change food crop quality, with positive or adverse outcomes for nutrition.
  6. UV radiation caused degradation of breakdown of dead plant material in dryland ecosystems, contributing to carbon dioxide emissions. At high latitudes, permafrost soils became exposed to solar radiation, which enhanced emissions of methane and carbon dioxide. Also at high latitudes, increased run-off from the land increased the amount of coloured organic matter entering aquatic ecosystems. This may protect aquatic organisms from UV radiation damage, but since the radiation also broke down these materials, carbon dioxide emissions were enhanced.
  7. It was noted that concentrations of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a breakdown product of some HFCs, and heavy fuel oils continued to be substantially below those that were considered a health or environmental risk. However, a wide range of commercially manufactured chemicals, such as some pharmaceuticals and pesticides, degraded to produce TFA, making continued monitoring of TFA advisable.
  8. Research stimulated by the Montreal Protocol had greatly advanced understanding of the diverse effects of UV radiation in the environment. An example was the degrading effect of UV radiation on plastics. On exposure to solar UV radiation, the surface layer of many plastics broke down to release plastic fragments (microplastics) into the environment, which had resulted in contamination of microplastics in fish and seafood and the foodweb in general.
  9. Co-Chair Nigel Paul wrapped up the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel update by presenting the work schedule leading up to the completion of the Quadrennial Report by the end of November 2018.

                3.         Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

  1. At the high-level segment of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Parties, Co-Chairs Marta Pizano and Bella Maranion made a presentation on behalf of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Ms. Pizano noted that the role of the Panel as defined in Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol was to assess every four years the control measures on the basis of available scientific, environmental, technical and economic information. Under the terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel regarding its scope of work, the Panel analysed and presented technical information and recommendations when specifically requested; it did not evaluate policy issues and did not recommend policy; it presented technical and economic information relevant to policy; it did not judge the merit or success of national plans, strategies or regulations; and its members functioned on a personal basis as experts and did not accept any instruction from Governments or other organizations. Over the past 30 years, the Panel had produced over 300 progress, assessment, task force and other reports. The Panel and its technical options committees currently brought together nearly 150 experts from over 30 countries. Since its creation in 1989, more than 900 experts from about 65 countries had participated in the assessment process.
  2. Ms. Pizano moved to the next part of the presentation on sector achievements and issues of interest to parties, starting with the foams sector, which produced approximately 30 million tonnes of foams per year, critical for insulation. Over one-third of HCFC blowing agents had converted to alternatives. Hydrocarbons had been widely implemented globally with substantial co-benefits in terms of climate change. Foams made with zero-ODP alternatives had improved insulation performance by 5 to 10 per cent; additional gains in insulation performance of 5 to 10 per cent were expected with heavy fuel oils/blends. HFO blends with water, hydrocarbons and oxygenated hydrocarbons (e.g., methyl formate and methylal) were increasingly available.
  3. She noted the success of the halon sector. Thirty years ago, annual worldwide halon production was approximately 40,000 t (approximately 225,000 ODP t) and growing. Since 2010, worldwide production had ceased, and this had avoided in excess of 1,000,000 t halon production or 6,700,000 ODP t or 3,500,000,000 t CO2-eq. Halons alternatives were available for all new fire protection designs, except for aircraft cargo bays. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) had recently mandated 2024 as the date by which new designs could no longer use halons. All civil aviation applications now had dates for which new designs could no longer use halons. These achievements had been made possible only through more than a decade of personal engagement between the Montreal Protocol and ICAO. She noted with appreciation and honour the attendance of the Acting Secretary-General of ICAO, Ivan Galan, at the Montreal Protocol 30th Anniversary Awards Ceremony and his acceptance on behalf of ICAO of the Policy and Implementation Leadership Award.
  4. Ms. Pizano stated that as the halon sector transition moved forward, many designs continued to need high-GWP HFCs and some limited applications still required HCFCs. New low-GWP fire suppressants were only in the very early stages of development, and the outlook was unclear. Halons would continue to be needed for the life of existing equipment and current aviation designs (excluding those with European Union retrofit requirements). While banked halons continued to supply needs for all current halon requirements, there was still concern that there would not be adequate long-term halon supplies. She noted that continued coordination with ICAO would be critical to the further success of the sector.
  5. Ms. Maranion then continued the presentation with regard to the medical and aerosols sector, noting that the global transition away from CFC metered-dose inhalers was almost complete, after 30 years of global action, with more than 98 per cent reduction in global CFC use. CFC-11 and
    CFC-12 production had ceased. CFC metered-dose inhalers were only being manufactured in China and the Russian Federation from CFC stockpiles while the transition to alternatives continued. Affordable CFC-free alternatives to metered-dose inhalers were available worldwide. The global use of HCFCs in aerosols and sterilants was relatively very small (a few thousand tonnes), with alternatives available.
  6. With regard to chemical uses, she noted that the global phase-out of CFCs used as solvents in aerospace applications was almost complete. CFC-113 production for this use had ceased; the Russian Federation continued to use CFC-113 from a small remaining stockpile, and recovery and recycling. ODS quantities used for process agents had decreased, with some applications phased out entirely, such as production of chlorinated polypropene, chlorinated ethylene vinyl acetate and methyl isocyanate derivatives. Laboratory and analytical uses of ODS continued under the global exemption, and with one essential-use exemption. There was an overall upward trend in global ODS production for feedstock uses for the last decade. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel was collaborating with the Scientific Assessment Panel and other experts to share information on global carbon tetrachloride emissions estimations, and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel would report on dichloromethane and dichloroethane in its 2018 assessment report.
  7. Ms. Maranion then noted the successes and continuing challenges in the methyl bromide sector. Article 7 data reporting indicated that 99 per cent (approximately 65,000 t) of methyl bromide had been phased out globally. This had broadly contributed to an increased adoption of sustainable production practices in agriculture. A total of 28 countries had phased out methyl bromide for all uses including quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS). Approximately 18,000 t of methyl bromide was produced and used for other uses (QPS, feedstock, critical uses, unreported use). QPS uses were currently reported by 68 Parties. Reduction of remaining QPS use would benefit ozone layer protection and still facilitate international trade. On other continuing challenges, she noted that some parties continue to report difficulties distinguishing between controlled and exempted uses; concerns existed about non-compliant and unreported uses; better tracking systems were needed to avoid QPS methyl bromide being used in controlled applications; and some parties had improved their reporting under Article 7, but concerns on accurate reporting still remained. The Scientific Assessment Panel and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee were working together to further clarify the relationship between methyl bromide consumption and its atmospheric concentration.
  8. Ms. Maranion then presented on the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pumps (RACHP) sector, noting that the use of CFCs in new RACHP equipment had ceased. In parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, the HCFC phase-out was almost complete; in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, HCFC-22 consumption in RACHP was decreasing and HCFCs would soon be used in RACHP servicing only. Low-GWP solutions were becoming increasingly available for many RACHP applications. Results of many tests of HCFC and high-GWP HFC alternatives under high ambient temperature conditions were available. She noted that RACHP technology was rapidly evolving and that an integrated approach was needed for low-GWP solutions that also took into account energy efficiency, flammability and toxicity.
  9. Continuing the 2018 assessment reports, she referred to the terms of reference established by parties in decision XXVII/6. Based on the terms of reference, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel through its technical options committees had initiated work on the assessment report, including planning for peer review for certain reports. The 2018 meetings of the technical options committees, most of which would be taking place in March, would include a focus on the assessment reports. The final technical options committee assessment reports would be submitted by the end of 2018. The assessment report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel would be presented to the Open-ended Working Group in 2019, and the synthesis report of the three panels would be presented to the Meeting of the Parties in 2019.
  10. Ms. Maranion noted that going forward, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel composed its technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies to maintain a balance of expertise to provide comprehensive, objective and policy neutral reports. The Panel provided a list of needed expertise that was updated annually and posted on the Secretariat website. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and technical options committees strove to achieve gender balance, balance between parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and those not so operating and geographical balance. She reiterated that the Panel remained ready to respond to tasks from parties, continued to identify emerging issues and sought to be aligned with the current and future needs of the parties, with access to appropriate expertise. She expressed appreciation for continued consideration by parties of the tasks that came to the Panel, of the overall workload and the timeline needed to produce quality outcomes that met the needs of the parties.
  11. Ms. Maranion concluded by noting that in looking forward, it was also important to look back, especially on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, to recognize those that had been instrumental to the legacy of the Assessment Panel’s contributions to the success of the Montreal Protocol. She noted that a presenter at the previous night’s awards ceremony used the phrase “standing on the shoulder of giants” by Sir Isaac Newton. She stated that the original phrase by John of Salisbury was longer and went as follows: “We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours.” She recognized those “giants” to the legacy of the Assessment Panel under the Montreal Protocol: the vision for the Panel by then-UNEP Executive Director Mostafa Tolba; the original Co‑Chairs of the Panel, Vic Buxton (Canada) and Stephen Andersen (United States of America); and the other preceding Co-Chairs of the Panel, Steve Lee-Bapty (United Kingdom), Lambert Kuijpers (Netherlands), Suely Carvalho (Brazil) and Jose Pons (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). She also extended appreciation to the past members of the Panel and technical options committees for their commitment and contributions to the Protocol and she recognized the unfailing support extended to the Panel by the offices of the Ozone and Multilateral Fund secretariats.