Report of June 2002 Meeting Subsidiary Bodies to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - HFC Issue Discussed

        The 8-day meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded in Bonn on June 14 without the fanfare and media attention of recent meetings. Over the past two years delegates rushed to work out particular details adding "flesh" to the Kyoto Protocol. With most of the necessary details complete to allow nations to consider ratification, delegates worked on broader issues while they await possible entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol.

        With the recent ratification of the European Union and Japan, the Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 74 nations representing 35.8% of developed country greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. It will enter into force when at least 55% of all developed country 1990 emissions are represented. With the US and Australia stating that they will not ratify, "mathematicians" are busy calculating what is necessary for entry into force. It has been stated that it can enter into force without Canada if both Russia and Poland ratify. Russia seems likely to ratify. Entry into force creates new problems for multinational companies and trading partner of the US.

        Last year, President Bush's declaration that he would not ratify the Protocol was accompanied by a "no engagement" negotiation policy at the 2001 international climate meetings in Bonn and Marrakech. While the Bush position on the Kyoto Protocol has not changed, the negotiation strategy has changed. This year, there was full engagement on negotiation of Kyoto Protocol issues that affected US interests. In fact, the US chaired the informal consultations on HFCs. The US plans to stay engaged as Parties prepare for the 8th Conference of the Parties in New Delhi, India October 23 - November 1.

HFCs

        Since the Parties did not address the "life or death" issues in preparing nations to consider ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, they found more time to address issues they have set aside --- such as HFCs. The Alliance, the US, and other countries consistently argue that the HFCs should not be treated separately or considered outside of the "basket of gases." Since 1998, the Parties have discussed the relationship between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols and the manner in which to treat HFCs since the Montreal Protocol urges use of HFCs to phase out of CFCs, and the Kyoto Protocol calls for control on emissions of six gases --- including HFCs.

        In 1999, the US was instrumental in getting the Parties to agree to place consideration of HFCs on hold until 2001. However, other issues kept delegates busy and the issue was held until this year. In the meantime, work was being conducted on HFCs. In 1999, the Montreal Protocol's Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) conducted a Special Report on HFCs. In 1999 Parties and other organizations were invited to submit information on potential ways and means of limiting HFC emissions. The Alliance sponsored the AD Little Report. In 2000, TEAP conducted a joint workshop on HFCs with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Last fall, in anticipation of the consideration of this issue in 2002, the Parties requested updated information on ways and means of limiting emissions of HFCs. The Alliance sponsored an update of the AD Little Report and submitted other information on HFCs for consideration by the Parties.

        The Parties received the information pursuant to the request. The information, provided by 12 non-governmental organizations and 5 Parties (US, Australia, Colombia, Switzerland, and Spain --- on behalf of the 15 European Union nations and 11 nations mentioned as possible candidates for future entry into the EU), is provided on the UNFCCC website at www.unfccc.int/program/wam/index/html.

        The submissions from the EU and Switzerland were concerned about controlling growth of HFCs and this was reflected in their oral statements delivered before the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) which took up the issue. Switzerland proposed development of standards for HFCs. The EU proposed a draft decision calling for work leading toward selection of technologies and options --- actions highly objectionable to the Alliance and the US. Several nations, including the US, Japan, Korea, and Australia delivered more moderate statements calling for information sharing and methods to evaluate the technology choices. India, on behalf of the developing countries, proposed a study of the supply and demand of HFCs. They find that this is one method of assuring that there will be a supply of HFCs if they invest more heavily into HFCs.

        The Secreariat asked the US to chair informal consultations and report back to the SBSTA in 7 days with draft conclusions. The closed consultation were active each day as like-minded USA, Canada, Australia, and Japan, negotiated with those from the European Union who were more aggressive on the HFC issue.

        The Alliance communicated well each day with the US delegates as the negotiations carried on. The Alliance also met with EU delegates to communicate areas of concern and answer their questions. It appeared that the US made great progress toward moderating the views of the EU, while allowing the EU to be pleased with the process on which all agreed to move ahead. Overall the US did a great job communicating with the Alliance, bringing our views forward in the negotiations, and negotiating conclusions which set a fair process forward.

        The conclusions are copied below in their entirety. Several highlights include:

• The group sought more study from experts and some desired a way to allow the TEAP to bring its information on HFCs to the SBSTA. The Alliance and the US find the TEAP credible and unbiased, but they are outside the Kyoto process because they are a Montreal Protocol body. Many also agreed that the IPCC provides the unbiased and credible information desired by the Parties. However, many believed that the IPCC was not chartered to do such studies. Some were concerned with duplicative work. As a result of long discussions and consultation from TEAP and IPCC experts, the SBSTA invited the IPCC and the TEAP, in consultation with other organizations such as UNEP, to consider whether it can do a study of the information desired (see next bullet). The SBSTA further invited them to communicate their replies to the SBSTA before its October 2002 session. The SBSTA will consider these replies with a view to deciding at the 8th Conference of the Parties (COP 8) in October in New Delhi whether to make a further request to these bodies to go ahead and conduct a study of the desired information.
• The information TEAP and IPCC shall consider include
  1. a summary of up-to-date scientific information on the relation of ozone layer depletion and global warming, including concentrations of relevant ozone-depleting and greenhouse gases;
  2. technical information on practices and technologies for phasing out ozone-depleting substances and at the same time contributing to the objectives of the Convention and the Montreal Protocol. It should cover the relevant sectors, include the technical options, inter alia, of improved containment, use of fluids, gases or aerosols with negligible or lower global warming potential, use of not-in-kind technology, process improvement and end-of-life-cycle recovery, recycling and disposal. It should present technical information relevant to evaluation, including cost, availability, health, medical, environmental and safety issues, technical performance, energy and resource efficiency and all associated greenhouse gas emissions using life cycle climate performance; and
  3. the future demand and supply of HFCs and the implication for developing countries

Chair's Entire Conclusions

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE STRATOSPHERIC OZONE LAYER AND EFFORTS TO SAFEGUARD THE GLOBAL CLIMATE SYSTEM: ISSUES RELATING TO HYDROFLUOROCARBONS AND PERFLUOROCARBONS

1. The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) took note of the submissions by Parties contained in documents FCCC/SBSTA/2002/MISC.6 and Add.1 and the submissions from non-governmental organizations provided on the UNFCCC web site, as well as the information contained in document FCCC/SBSTA/2002/INF.1.
2. The SBSTA recalled that the UNFCCC provides flexibility for the Annex I Parties to optimize their approaches in minimizing the overall carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of greenhouse gases in their actions to address climate change.
3. The SBSTA recognized the role of the use of HFCs, hydrocarbons, ammonia, CO₂ and other options, in the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol and encouraged Parties to ensure that their actions to address ozone depletion are undertaken in a manner that also contributes to the objective of the UNFCCC.
4. The SBSTA encouraged governments to engage in or continue dialogues with relevant industries and stakeholders to advance information regarding replacement options for ozone-depleting substances in a manner that contributes to the objectives of the Montreal Protocol and the UNFCCC.
5. The SBSTA considered the wide dissemination of policy-neutral information to be vital in allowing enterprises and governments to make fully informed choices regarding replacement options for ozone-depleting substances. It encouraged relevant organizations to continue to make such information available, particularly to developing countries, including through the UNFCCC web site.
6. The SBSTA noted the importance of developing a balanced scientific, technical and policy-relevant information package. The objective of developing such an information package would be to make policy-neutral, user-friendly information available to all Parties and stakeholders to assist them in making informed decisions when evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances while at the same time contributing to the objectives of the Convention and the Montreal Protocol.
7. The above-mentioned information package should be concise and cover three broad areas:
   1. A summary of up-to-date scientific information on the relation of ozone layer depletion and global warming, including concentrations of relevant ozone-depleting and greenhouse gases;
   2. Technical information on practices and technologies for phasing out ozone-depleting substances and at the same time contributing to the objectives of the Convention and the Montreal Protocol. It should cover the relevant sectors, including heating, refrigeration and air-conditioning, foams, aerosols, solvents and fire-fighting applications. It should include the technical options, inter alia, of improved containment, use of fluids, gases or aerosols with negligible or lower global warming potential, use of not-in-kind technology, process improvement and end-of-life-cycle recovery, recycling and disposal. It should present technical information relevant to evaluation, including cost, availability, health, medical, environmental and safety issues, technical performance, energy and resource efficiency and all associated greenhouse gas emissions using life cycle climate performance. Where appropriate, reference should be made to relevant policies and measures;
   3. The future demand and supply of HFCs and the implication for developing countries, drawing upon relevant reports. The SBSTA noted that many developing countries use HFCs in applications and depend on imports of these substances.

8. To facilitate the development of such information, the SBSTA invited the IPCC and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), in consultation with other organizations such as UNEP, to consider the modalities, feasibility, resource implications and timing of providing the balanced scientific and technical information described in paragraph 7 above. The SBSTA further invited them to communicate their replies to the SBSTA before the latter's seventeenth session [October 2002]. The SBSTA will consider these replies at its seventeenth session with a view to deciding at the time of COP 8 [October 2002] whether to make a further request on this issue to these bodies.
9. In considering such a draft decision, the SBSTA should ensure that the information package:
   1. Does not duplicate current efforts by those organizations;
   2. Is within the mandate of those organizations;
   3. Builds also upon the information provided, as referred to in paragraph 5 above;
   4. Is cost-efficient;
   5. Does not lead to the creation of any new reporting requirements for Parties.
10. The SBSTA noted the importance of continuing research and development on technologies that safeguard the ozone layer while at the same time contributing to the objectives of the Convention and the Montreal Protocol, and encouraged Parties to work towards that end.
11. The SBSTA noted that the Multilateral Fund (MLF) under the Montreal Protocol is funding the replacement of ozone-depleting substances in developing countries by alternatives, some of which are also greenhouse gases. The SBSTA invited Parties to consider project funding in addition to MLF funding, in particular through the GEF and CDM.
12. The SBSTA requested the UNFCCC secretariat to bring these conclusions to the attention of the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol through its secretariat.
13. The SBSTA welcomed the input provided by Parties on information aspects of HFCs and PFCs, and agreed to recommend a draft decision at its seventeenth session for consideration at COP 8. It also agreed to consider at its seventeenth session the question of concluding the agenda item, "Relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate system: issues relating to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons".