December 13, 2002
MEMO TO: Alliance Members
FROM: Dave Stirpe
SUBJECT: Summary of 14th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Rome
The combined 14th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
and 5th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention
was held in Rome, November 25-29. It began with a preparatory segment and
concluded with a high-level segment with ministers acknowledging the 15th
anniversary of the Protocol, the success in protecting the ozone layer,
and the work still to be done to assure compliance and to achieve the goals.
Proposals that were introduced in Montreal in July were further considered,
finalized, or rejected.
Items of main concern to the Parties included compliance with the
Protocol and replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the 2003-2005
timeframe. The United States remained very vocal and active in the
international negotiations and discussions.
Compliance and Implementation
Specifically the United States, with endorsement from several other
countries, proposed several improvements to the non-compliance review
procedure that would have made the Implementation Committee operate more
efficiently. They included speeding up the timelines for reporting and
making information more available. Many developing countries noted that
effort should be placed on helping countries that face compliance
difficulties. These countries had to freeze their CFC production and
consumption in 1999 at 1995-97 average levels, and phase out by 2010.
They noted difficulties in providing data within a shorter time period,
as proposed. After much discussion and lack of agreement on many elements,
the US, with concurrence from other sponsors, withdrew the proposed
decision.
The work of the Implementation Committee has become more important
as developing country obligations have come into effect. The Committee
reported on a variety of cases whereby Parties have been placed into
noncompliance. Much work needs to be done between the Party, the Committee
and the Secretariat to clarify data and reporting. The Parties adopted
24 decisions on compliance issues.
Replenishment
The Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) presented its
study regarding replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for Implementation
of the Montreal Protocol for the 2003-2005 timeframe. It explained its
September supplement to its April report assessing existing and expected
agreements for phasing out CFCs and other ODS in developing countries.
The supplement took into account the comments of the Parties at the Working
Group Meeting in July. The original TEAP conclusion was $548-600 million
to replenish the Fund for 2003-2005. The supplement reduced the request to
$530.5 - $568 million.
Many developing country delegates stated that numerous specific
needs were not reflected in the study; and therefore greater allowance
needs to be made. The group of developing countries as a whole noted
that the funding proposal was not sufficient to meet the needs of all
the developing countries in meeting the huge challenge of phasing out
CFCs and other ODS. They pointed out specific needs that were not taken
into account in the study such as public awareness projects, institutional
strengthening, curbing illegal trade, training, and capacity building
needs. The developed countries stated that they understood the issues
raised and would engage in a fruitful discussion to ensure developing
country compliance. Parties met in closed session for several days to
reach agreement on the ultimate funding.
Ultimately, the Parties agreed to fund the Multilateral Fund at
$573 million taking into account that $23 million would come from
interest in the next three years. Many developing country representatives
were not convinced that this amount was real. Since there is a carryover
of $76 million, new contributions will be only $474 million. (The last
triennium was funded at $440 million). The US contribution has been reduced
from 25% to 22%. As a result, the US portion has been reduced from the
last triennium's funding even though the funding is greater. The US share
for the 2000-02 funding was $110 million. The US share for the 2002-05
funding will be $104 million.
Relationship between Montreal and Kyoto Protocols - HFCs
Over the last five years the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Montreal Protocol have
sought ways to address the relationship between the two treaties.
In 2002 the UNFCCC Parties sought more HFC study from experts and desired
a way to allow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
the Montreal Protocol Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to
bring its information on HFCs to the Parties. As a result of long
discussions and consultation from TEAP and IPCC experts in June, the
UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)
invited the IPCC and the TEAP to consider whether it could do a study
of the information desired. In October at the UNFCCC 8th Conference of
Parties (COP 8), IPCC and TEAP responded affirmatively pending IPCC
approval in February 2003. (See Alliance document delhiHFC.doc
November 6, 2002).
TEAP was previously authorized by the Montreal Protocol Parties
to work cooperatively with SBSTA. However, the Parties agreed in July to
discuss the COP 8 result at the Rome Meeting. They specified that
discussion would be limited to considering the request and cooperation
between the TEAP and SBSTA.
The European Union (EU) introduced a draft decision that intended to
mirror the COP 8 decision by welcoming the upcoming report of IPCC and
TEAP and requesting TEAP to work cooperatively. There was general
agreement that the report would be useful. The US raised concern only
over whether the report should come back to the Parties of the Montreal
Protocol for consideration when it is completed in 2005. The EU and
others felt that the report should be considered by the Montreal
Protocol Parties as well as the UNFCCC; however, the US opposed
consideration by the Montreal Protocol Parties. The US stated that HFCs
are not addressed by the Montreal Protocol. On the other hand, the EU
and others believed that since TEAP was providing assistance - the
report should be considered by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
After much debate, there was consensus that the report should be
considered by the Montreal Protocol Parties in so far as it relates to
actions to address ozone depletion. The decision follows:
Relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone
layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate system: issues
relating to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons
Welcoming decision X/CP.8 taken by the eighth Conference of the Parties
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on the
relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer
and efforts to safeguard the global climate system,
To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to work with
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing the report
mentioned above and to address all areas in one single integrated report
to be finalized by early 2005. The report should be completed in time to
be submitted to the Open-ended Working Group for consideration in so far
as it relates to actions to address ozone depletion and the Subsidiary
Body for Scientific and Technological Advice of the Convention on
Climate Change simultaneously.
IPCC's Special Report on practices and technologies will assist
Parties in making informed decisions when evaluating alternatives to
ozone depleting substances while at the same time contributing to the
objectives of the UNFCCC and the Montreal Protocol. The aim of the Special
Report is to inform industry and policy decision making regarding
relevant considerations in choosing among options to replace ozone
depleting substances. The choice among options involves a number of
environmental, health, safety, and technical performance considerations
in addition to consideration of direct and indirect greenhouse gas
emissions.
According to IPCC, for each type of application the Special Report
will cover the relevant technical/scientific considerations, including:
- Technical information relevant to the evaluation, including cost,
availability, health, environment and safety considerations, technical
performance, energy and resource efficiency and all greenhouse gas
emissions, using a systematic approach, such as the total equivalent
warming impact (TEWI) and all greenhouse gases and Life Cycle Climate
Performance (LCCP).
- Technical options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, e.g. through
containment, recovery, recycling, destruction, the use of alternative
fluids and not-in-kind technologies. Where appropriate reference
should be made to examples of relevant policies and measures.
An integrated analysis will assess toxicity, atmospheric chemistry
effects (e.g., air quality) and potential build up of gases and their
degradation products in the atmosphere. Reference could be made to the
full range of technical literature as specified in the IPCC procedures on
the use of non-peer reviewed literature.
IPCC recognized that due to the technical nature of the Special
Report, participation of the appropriate industry experts (in their
personal capacities as experts and not as representatives) would need
to be ensured. Following standard IPCC practices, the best qualified
technical experts would be sought across sectors and geographic regions
(including, e.g., academia, industry, non-governmental organizations,
etc.). Consistent with IPCC procedures, all possible measures would
be taken to ensure that the report would be policy neutral and
user-friendly.
TEAP will work and cooperate with IPCC in issuing a single
report. TEAP will also carry out an independent study, as requested, on
the availability of HFCs in developing countries. All of the work will
be completed by 2005.
Illegal Trade in CFCs
For the 8th year in a row, the Parties addressed illegal trade in
ozone-depleting compounds. Draft decisions were based on the Secretariat's
comprehensive study prepared pursuant to 2001 and 2002 requests of the
Parties. The 44-page study, entitled, "Study on Monitoring of
International Trade and Prevention of Illegal Trade in Ozone-Depleting
Substances, Mixtures, and Products containing Ozone-Depleting Substances"
noted that while the Parties developed many steps to address illegal
trade such as import and export licenses, the time was right to examine
more ways to address the issue since illegal trade is emerging in all
regions. The report can be obtained by the Alliance, or found at
www.unep.ch/ozone/oewg/22oewg/22oewg-4.e.pdf.
The Alliance assisted the authors in preparing the report. It
summarized all action taken by the Parties, and proposed a wide range of
ideas covering customs codes, labeling, licensing systems, national
enforcement and international networks. It also proposed a new
enforcement assistance function within the ozone regime, which the US
opposed, with the aim of improving coordination, channeling expertise
from the enforcement community and providing direct assistance to
developing countries.
Draft decisions addressed many aspects of illegal trade. Poland
was working with many Parties to refine a cumbersome proposed decision to
urge Parties to undertake many responsibilities. As a result, there was
consensus on a decision that encourages Parties to consider means and
continued efforts to monitor international transit trade; introduce economic
incentives to promote the use of ODS substitutes that do not impair
international trade, and make greater use of UNEP regional networks. The
decision urges Parties to introduce World Customs Organization
recommendations to their national customs classification, requests UNEP to
report in 2 years on activities of regional networks in combating illegal
trade; provides for illegally-traded quantities not to be counted against
a Parties' consumption provided the Party does not place these on their
own market, and requests the Multilateral Fund to continue to provide
financial and technical assistance to developing countries.
The European Union proposed a decision entitled, "Consideration of
the Use of the Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and
Labeling of Chemicals that Deplete the Ozone Layer." It notes there would
be value in labeling ODS under the Globally Harmonized System, and
providing information with respect to identifying the safe handling of
these substances in trade, the workplace and in consumer products. The
decision requested the Secretariat to clarify whether ODS can be included
in the System and to report to the Parties in 2003.
Destruction
After reviewing TEAP's destruction report, the Parties addressed
the issue in 2002 and adopted a decision that approves several destruction
technologies for CFCs, HCFCs, and halons. It requests the TEAP to update,
by next year, the Code of Good Housekeeping to provide guidance on
minimizing ODS release and environmental impact during operation of the
technologies. More work will be conducted in the future years on
destruction.
Metered Dose Inhalers (MDIs)
The Parties adopted a decision on a global database and assessment
to determine appropriate measures to complete the transition from CFC MDIs.
It requests each Party to submit available information to the Ozone
Secretariat by February 28, 2003, and annual updates thereafter on CFC
and CFC-free MDIs sold or distributed within the country and CFC and
CFC-free MDIs produced within the country for export to other Parties.
TEAP will take the information into account when assessing essential use
exemptions.
Ratifications
So far, 185 Parties ratified the 1985 Vienna Convention; 184 have
ratified the 1987 Montreal Protocol; 164 have ratified the 1990 London
Amendment; 142 have ratified the 1992 Copenhagen Amendment; 86 have
ratified the 1997 Montreal Amendment; and 41 have ratified the 1999
Beijing Amendment. In October the US Senate ratified the Montreal and
Beijing Amendments, but the State department does not intend to deposit
the instruments of ratification with the United Nations until EPA
regulations are in place implementing the amendments. The regulations will
be finalized soon.
Looking Ahead
There were no discussions this year concerning the European
Union's desire to accelerate the phaseout of HCFCs in developed or
developing countries. This discussion has occurred for the last 3 years
without adjustment or amendment to the Protocol. However it is expected
to be raised again in 2003. Other amendments will be proposed in 2003 as
well.
The Meeting dates for next year have not been set but it appears
that the July Meeting may be in Montreal for the third year in a row; and
the Meeting of the Parties will be in the fall in Nairobi unless a Party
provides an invitation.
Conclusion
The Parties participated in debates about methyl bromide and its
alternatives. While the Alliance does not address this compound, it will
impact the Montreal Protocol greatly in the next several years. Two draft
decisions on methyl bromide were withdrawn after much debate and lack of
consensus. TEAP is preparing a report on methyl bromide alternatives in
2003. According to some, the discussion may be more appropriate next
year. Healthy debate continues over whether alternatives are effective.
A methyl bromide phaseout is scheduled to occur in 2005 with
exceptions and exempted critical uses agreed by Parties. The US expects
to achieve only a 50% reduction. In January 2003, most countries will
ask for 5% critical use exemption for 2005. The US may ask for a 35%
exemption. Eventually the US could be out of compliance with the Montreal
Protocol if it cannot comply with the methyl bromide phaseout schedule.
The farm community has the support of many in Congress to continue methyl
bromide use - but noncompliance with the Protocol could have ramifications
for the HCFC- and HFC-producing and using industries.
Sanctions are high for noncompliance with the Protocol. Rights
to export HCFCs and crops grown with methyl bromide are at risk. A US
failure on the Montreal Protocol has many ramifications, both politically
and environmentally. The US cannot afford to burn up the goodwill it has
earned with the other Protocol Parties as it promotes HCFC and HFC
alternative technologies in the Montreal and Kyoto Protocol processes.
The Bush Administration and Congress will continue to hear from the
Alliance as to the importance of maintaining compliance with the Montreal
Protocol.
Much remains to be done in order to complete the process and return
the stratospheric ozone layer to its pre-hole condition. The US needs to
maintain its leadership role in Protocol negotiations and focus attention
on its own compliance and the compliance of the developing countries. In
order to fulfill its commitments, the Bush Administration and Congress
need to fully fund the US commitment to the Multilateral Fund. The US
contribution was $36.6 million per year and be lowered slightly for the
next three years after replenishment. The US is $29 million in arrears;
and the 2003 Bush Administration request was only $32 million, $4 million
under the annual commitment.
The Montreal Protocol is viewed as the model environmental treaty
in which nations came together in agreement to address an international
environmental problem. While the Kyoto Protocol has undergone considerable
scrutiny because of scientific uncertainties, the Montreal Protocol has
successfully used scientific certainty to advance environmental protection.
The US government's leadership role in recognizing science, phasing out
ozone depleting substances, and promoting alternatives has been
instrumental in the Protocol's success.
