Montreal Protocol Working Group Meeting:
Montreal July 23-25, 2002
Parties to the Montreal Protocol met in Montreal,
July 23-25 to conduct a meeting of the Open Ended Working
Group. Proposals that were introduced will be considered
at the 14th Meeting of the Parties in Rome, Italy November
25-29. In addition, the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel (TEAP) released four reports summarized below which
can be found at http://www.teap.org.
The meeting opened with the introduction of the new
Executive Secretary, Marco Gonzalez, who replaced Madhava
Sarma, who had served over a decade. He noted that his main
challenges included compliance with the CFC phaseout schedule
in developing countries and ratification of recent amendments
by the Parties.
Compliance and Replenishment
Items of main concern to the Parties included compliance
with the Protocol and replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for
the 2003-2005 timeframe. It is important to note that 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.
The United States remains very vocal and active in the
international negotiations and discussions. Specifically the
United States proposed several improvements to the non-compliance
review procedure that will make the Implementation Committee
operate more efficiently. They include 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.
TEAP presented its study regarding replenishment of the
Multilateral Fund for Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
for the 2003-2005 timeframe. It explained how its 150-page
study assessed existing and expected agreements for phasing
out CFCs and other ODS in developing countries. TEAP
concluded that funding of $548-600 million was needed to
replenish the Fund for 2003-2005.
Many developing countries 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. 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. The Ad Hoc
Working Group on Replenishment will discuss the funding proposal
in more depth and report to the Parties in November.
Relationship between Montreal and Kyoto Protocols
In light of the activity at the June Meeting of the
Subsidiary Bodies to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change in Bonn, it appeared that there may be
lengthy discussion about the Subsidiary Body request for
TEAP, in consultation with other organizations, to consider
whether it can further study HFCs. In a report to Alliance
members in July, it was reported that the Subsidiary Body for
Science and Technological Advice (SBSTA) invited TEAP to
communicate its reply before its the October 2002 Climate
Meeting in New Delhi so that SBSTA can consider the replies
with a view to deciding whether to make a further request to
TEAP to go ahead and conduct a study of the desired information
on HFCs.
The Parties to the Montreal Protocol did not take up
this issue at length because in a decision three years ago,
the Parties encouraged ongoing fruitful collaboration between
TEAP and SBSTA, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). TEAP will most likely respond
affirmatively to SBSTA without intervention by the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol. The Alliance encourages TEAP
involvement in the upcoming HFC studies under the Kyoto Protocol.
[According to the SBSTA request in Bonn in June: The
information TEAP should consider include a) 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; (b)
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 (c) the future demand and supply of
HFCs and the implication for developing countries.]
At the Rome Meeting in November, the Montreal
Protocol Parties agreed to discuss the October result of the
SBSTA request and TEAP response on studying HFCs. They
specified that discussion would be limited to considering the
request and cooperation between the TEAP and SBSTA --- not a
discussion on the relationship between the ozone layer and
climate.
Illegal Trade in CFCs
For the 8th year in a row, the Parties addressed
illegal trade in ozone-depleting compounds. They reviewed
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. The US stated that it
was not the job of the Secretariat to enforce the Protocol,
but would support regional enforcement officers.
Decisions moved forward to November 2002 and to 2003
on many aspects of illegal trade. Poland was working with
many Parties to refine a proposed decision to urge Parties
to comply with previous decisions, clarify terms, introduce
economic incentives to promote ODS substitutes, continue
Secretariat liaison with various trade organizations, and
strengthen collaboration between environmental and legal
officials.
The European Union proposed a decision entitled,
"Consideration of the Use of the Globally Harmonized System
for the Classification and labeling of Chemicals for Ozone
Depleting Substances." It stated that a worldwide requirement
to label ODS improves the awareness of downstream users of
the environmental hazard of ODS as well as helping customs
and other authorities identify ODS. Therefore it requested
the Secretariat to contact those involved with the transport
of dangerous goods to evaluate the possibilities for and
feasibility of including ODS in the globally harmonized
system work, and to report to the Parties in 2003.
Science and Environmental Effects
The Third Science Assessment Report was summarized
and will be released in early 2003. The United States urged
its completion by February 2003 in order to allow proposals
for amendments and adjustments to be made the Protocol within
6 months of the 2003 Meeting of the Parties. An Executive
Summary will be released before the Rome Meeting in November.
Among other things, the report will address the impact
of ozone loss on climate change. The assessment also will
describe the physical and chemical processes which affected
the ozone layer and take into account the requirements by
Parties to study the fate of very-short-lived ozone-depleting
substances in the atmosphere. Information on ozone loss in
the Arctic and mid-latitudes will be included.
An Environmental Effects Assessment will be completed
by the end of 2002. It will note the consequences of ozone
depletion and climate change combined. It will include the
effects of increasing ultra-violet (UV) radiation on human
health, animals, plants, air quality and materials. It will
also take into account how those effects might be influenced
by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and increasing
temperatures. For example, plants react negatively to
increased UV, while increased carbon dioxide has a positive
effect on them.
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Reports --- http://www.teap.org
The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP)
presented the findings of its four reports in three volumes
totaling over 500 pages. The reports were released in July.
"Volume 1: Progress Report" summarizes data on
emissions, essential use requests, and lab uses. It also
provides information on n-propyl bromide --- an ozone depleting
compound. It contains the reports of the Technical Options
Committees for every sector using ozone depleting compounds.
"Volume 2: Assessment of the Funding Requirement for
the Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for 2003-1005"
presents TEAP's analysis and conclusions as to funding needed
for developing countries to comply with the Montreal Protocol
for the next three years.
"Volume 3: Report of the Task Force on Collection,
Recovery, and Storage; and Report of the Task Force on Destruction
Technologies" assessed use patterns, associated emissions and
aspects of collection and storage of ozone-depleting compounds
from all use sectors. It presents an overview of ODS inventories
and their management in each sector. The report includes
consideration of technical feasibility, economic implications,
and barriers. In regard to destruction, the report provides a
comprehensive assessment of technologies available for the
destruction of the current and anticipated global stocks of
surplus ODS. The Task Force developed updated screening criteria
which were applied for 45 identified technologies. Sixteen
technologies met the criteria. Three technologies are in
commercial use.
In 2003, TEAP will release a report analyzing whether
HCFCs are available to developing countries in sufficient
quantity and quality at affordable prices, taking into account
the 15 percent allowance to meet basic domestic needs of these
countries.
Ratifications
So far, 184 Parties ratified the 1985 Vienna Convention;
183 have ratified the 1987 Montreal Protocol; 163 have ratified
the 1990 London Amendment; 141 have ratified the 1992 Copenhagen
Amendment; 79 have ratified the 1997 Montreal Amendment; and 30
have ratified the 1999 Beijing Amendment. The US Senate has not
yet ratified the Montreal or Beijing Amendments, but they intend
to do so in the near future.
Conclusion
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.
Nevertheless, 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
is $36.6 million per year and will rise for the next 3 years after
replenishment. The US is $29 million in arrears; and the 2003 Bush
Administration request is only $32 million, $4 million under the
annual commitment.
In addition, methyl bromide must be reduced 70% by 2003;
and a 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.
