The combined sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was held at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in Rome, from 25 to 29 November 2002. It consisted of a preparatory segment, held on 25, 26, 27 and 28 November and a high-level segment, held on 28 and 29 November.
As the combined meeting followed a single agenda, the present report covers the deliberations that took place under the substantive items of the agenda.
The preparatory segment of the combined meeting was opened by its Co-Chair, Mr. Milton Catelin (Australia), at 10 a.m. on 25 November 2002. Opening statements were made by Mr. Corrado Clini, Director-General in the Ministry of Environment of Italy and Mr. Marco González, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat speaking on behalf of Mr. Klaus Tőpfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
In his opening address, Mr. Clini welcomed participants to the combined sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. He described the process under the Montreal Protocol as a major example of global initiatives aimed at achieving sustainable development, noting that efforts to ensure the protection of the ozone layer had been marked by a strong driving force for global technological innovation in several industrial sectors in both developed and developing countries. He welcomed the remarkable results that had been achieved in restructuring industrial practices and altering consumer behaviour and trade patterns, and which had involved millions of enterprises and consumers, as well as considerable financial resources. Given the fact that the phasing-out of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) had almost been completed in industrialized countries, the focus was now on the phasing-out of critical and essential uses, the recovery of the ozone layer, the destruction of ODS and the fight against illegal trade.
The challenge currently facing the Parties was how to strengthen technical and financial assistance to Article 5 Parties to enable them to comply with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. In that regard, new models of partnerships and cooperation between developed and developing countries had already been mapped out in the framework of the Multilateral Fund, in line with commitments adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in September 2002.
Mr. Clini noted that the country-driven approach recently adopted by the Multilateral Fund recognized each country's responsibility to protect the ozone layer and the environment, and allowed Article 5 Parties more flexibility in the use of funds based on strategies best suited to their local conditions. He stressed, in conclusion, the need to allow Article 5 Parties not only to achieve the phase-out of ODS locally, but also to help ensure the recovery of the ozone layer globally, in compliance with the Montreal Protocol provisions.
Mr. Marco González, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat, speaking on behalf of the Executive Director of UNEP, Mr. Klaus Töpfer, welcomed participants to the meeting and expressed his gratitude to the Government and people of Italy for hosting it. He noted that it was encouraging that the 2002 Scientific Assessment Panel Report had confirmed that ozone-depleting chemicals were currently peaking and could begin to decline with the recovery of the ozone layer as early as the mid twenty-first century.
He recalled that the ultimate goal of the Montreal Protocol was to reduce and eventually eliminate ODS and warned that failure to comply with the provisions of the Protocol would delay and could even prevent the ozone layer's future recovery.
He welcomed the fact that the Montreal Protocol process had continuously evolved over the past 15 years and had recently been hailed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development as a global success. He also drew attention to the launching and distribution at the current meeting of the book by Mr. K. Madhava Sarma and Mr. Stephen O. Andersen on Protection of the Ozone Layer – the United Nations history, which documented the accomplishments of the Protocol as well as the magnitude of the tasks facing the Parties.
Mr. González introduced the items on the agenda, highlighting some of the key issues before the Parties such as the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the 2003-2005 triennium, and stressed the importance of determining, in the same spirit of collaboration that had prevailed in past negotiations, an appropriate level of funding to assist Article 5 Parties in meeting their obligations during the critical compliance period. He also expressed appreciation to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), whose Task Force had provided a report on their assessment of the funding requirement for the replenishment.
He welcomed the progress made in implementing the Montreal Protocol provisions and said that the Parties were now faced with the new challenges of coordinating efforts with other multilateral environmental agreements and sharing with them the valuable lessons learned from the Montreal Protocol. He also said that a major issue was the growing importance of coordination between the Implementation Committee and the Executive Committee. In order to review a country's compliance situation and make useful recommendations, the Implementation Committee had to have access to accurate and up-to-date information and had to work closely with Parties and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund. He emphasized the importance of timely data reporting in that regard.
Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Community, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Macedonia (the former Yugoslav Republic of), Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova (Republic of), Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, St. Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
The following non-Parties were represented: Bhutan, Eritrea, Holy See, Niue.
The following intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies were also represented: Division of Technology Industry and Economics (DTIE) of UNEP, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations Environment Programme, Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Ozone Secretariat, Secretairat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementationof the Montreal Protocol, United Nations Office at Nairobi; Environment Public Authority, Environmental Crime Protection Programme (ECPP); American Lung Association, Association Sans But Lucratif, Econatura, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Greenpeece International, Industrial Technology Research Institute, International Council of Women, Methyl Bromide Global Coalition, Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry Association (MOPIA).
Mr. Milton Catelin (Australia), one of the Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, served as Chair of the preparatory segment of the combined meeting.
The Chair, Mr. Catelin, introduced the provisional agenda (UNEP/OzL.Conv.6/1 – UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/1). In the light of a formal letter received from the Government of South Africa, the Meeting agreed to delete item 6 from its agenda.
Following proposals by representatives, the Meeting agreed to include on its agenda, under the item on "Other Matters", an item dealing with the interaction between the Executive Committee and the Implementation Committee; an item dealing with the relationship between the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the World Trade Organization; an item dealing with critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for Parties operating under Article 5; an item dealing with the establishment of procedures and modalities for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for countries operating under Article 5, paragraph 1; an item on an update on expedited procedures; an item dealing with the issue of recovery; an item dealing with the development of policies governing the service sector and final use of chillers; and an item dealing with the use of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for the Classification and Labelling of Chemicals that deplete the ozone layer.
One representative requested that the Ozone Secretariat advise the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on its 15 July 2002 request to the World Trade Organization (WTO) seeking observer status with the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment. The representative suggested that this matter be addressed under the item on "other matters".
Following a proposal by one representative, the Meeting also agreed to include under item 3 (b) of its agenda a discussion on the provision of funding for research activities in the context of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.
Statement by the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
Recommendations by the Bureau of the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention arising out of the fifth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers.
Relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate system: issues relating to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.
Compliance issues considered by the Implementation Committee.
Financial statements and budgets for the trust funds for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol.
Application of Armenia for reclassification as a developing country.
The Meeting agreed to follow its customary procedure and to establish contact groups as necessary.
The Executive Secretary reported that, since the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention, held in Beijing in 1999, 12 additional Parties had ratified the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol; 28 had ratified the London Amendment; 40 had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment; 55 the Montreal Amendment; and 41 the Beijing Amendment. He welcomed Guinea-Bissau as the latest member of the ozone community, its instruments of ratification having been received just days before.
The President of the Bureau of the Vienna Convention reported that the Bureau had examined the recommendations arising out of the fifth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers. Some priority areas for research had been identified, and a draft budget had been prepared by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to cover those areas, to ensure that high-quality work continued to be carried out and to increase scientific capacity. A draft decision would be submitted to the Parties shortly.
A number of representatives spoke in favour of funding such research, several of them describing the research work being pursued in their own countries. In many cases, the research had slowed down or even stopped owing to a lack of funding, particularly for maintenance and calibration of the measuring instruments. One representative, cautioning against a complacent attitude to the ozone problem, noted that while the ozone layer did seem to be recovering, climate change was at the same time impacting the recovery. Consequently, more research and systematic observations were needed. Another representative said that there was a need for such research to be grounded in the practical questions of what the findings and readings actually meant in terms of health or food security, while another urged that the issue be resolved at the current meeting, rather than being left to the next meeting of the Parties to the Vienna Convention, three years hence.
In answer to some representatives, who sought clarification of aspects of the proposed budget for the high-quality work to be carried out, the observer from WMO stressed that the budget was for a long-term project, intended to give some security to Article 5 Parties that wished to establish ozone measurement programmes and installations. He said that the ability to track the expected recovery of the ozone layer relied totally upon maintaining the measurement capabilities for column ozone that were in place. Satellite measurement systems were not always reliable and, if they failed, time was needed to re-establish their capability. On the other hand, ground-based measuring instruments had proved reliable, if systematically maintained and upgraded. They required relatively inexpensive periodic calibrations, but resources for that critical activity had recently decreased sharply. Once observations were compromised, years elapsed before the integrity of the data could be regained, while continuity of the data was lost forever. While WMO did understand that using the resources of the Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the purpose of funding research was without precedent, he stressed that no funds were available elsewhere.
In response to a question from the representative of Argentina, a representative of the Ozone Secretariat said that using the Trust Fund resources for such a purpose would require a change to the terms of reference of the Fund, which in turn would require a decision by the Conference of the Parties.
The Meeting established a contact group, chaired by the representative of Argentina, which Parties with views on the topic and the observer from WMO were invited to join, with the twin mandates of considering an amendment to the terms of reference of the Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention and considering the proposals which had been made in relation to funding of research activities.
The representative of Argentina introduced a conference room paper containing a revised proposal for a decision on ozone-related monitoring and research activities for the Vienna Convention, which Argentina was sponsoring in collaboration with a number of other Parties.
The representative of the Czech Republic announced his Government's intention to contribute between $30,000 and $50,000 to support the activities on research and observations relevant to the Vienna Convention, consistent with the proposed decision.
The Meeting agreed to amend the draft decision accordingly to note the generous offer of the Czech Republic, and extended its thanks to that Government.
One representative underlined the need for the ground-based monitoring stations to be sited wherever they were needed.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decision on ozone-related monitoring and research activities for the Vienna Convention to the high-level segment for approval.
Mr. Jose Pons Pons, Co-Chair of the Aerosols Technical Options Committee of TEAP, introduced the September 2002 supplement to the April 2002 TEAP Replenishment Task Force Report, Assessment of the Funding Requirement for the Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Period 2003-2005, which had been prepared by the TEAP Task Force on replenishment, in accordance with the request of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Replenishment, following the Group's meeting in Montreal on 26 July 2002.
He briefly outlined the time schedule of the report and its basic assumptions and procedures, the country categories used for calculation of funding for Annex A CFCs, the control schedule reductions, and the estimates for the triennium 2003-2005 that had originally been made in the TEAP Task Force's April 2002 Replenishment Report.
Mr. Lambert Kuijpers, Co-Chair of TEAP, said that the Ad Hoc Working Group on Replenishment had requested that, in supplementing its report, the Task Force should, inter alia: update the analysis of the CFC consumption sector, taking into account the decisions of the 36th and 37th meetings of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund; separate out and specify the funding amounts for linear reductions for all substances for the period after 2005; study the consumption of carbon tetrachloride for process agents; and conduct sensitivity analyses for investment and non-investment activities, including cost-price analysis of CFCs and methyl bromide, and the impact on project costs.
He said that, on the basis of the updates carried out and contained in the supplementary report, the Task Force had estimated a funding requirement ranging from $530.5 million to $568.7 million for the triennium 2003-2005. Within the total funding required, the Task Force had taken into account the linear progress towards future compliance; the possibility of further reductions due to Parties' failure to ratify the Copenhagen Amendment; and other factors, which could either increase or decrease the funding requirement. Concerning the CFC consumption sector, a more detailed analysis had been possible and he enumerated the results. He also gave the figures deriving from consideration of the linear reductions towards the next compliance step.
Mr. Jonathan Banks described how the Task Force had taken into account the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group with regard to methyl bromide, namely: to investigate the implications for the funding requirement of an increase of the methyl bromide consumption to 10,200 tonnes; to prepare an alternative analysis on the basis of the arithmetic mean of the cost-effectiveness values of approved projects; to analyse the implications of possible increases or decreases in the price of methyl bromide in Article 5 Parties over the triennium, whereby two calculations had been performed, assuming 3 per cent and 7 per cent increases in the price of methyl bromide; and to evaluate the implications for the funding requirement if there were to be no further ratifications of the Copenhagen Amendment.
Mr. Kuijpers explained that, concerning the request to investigate the implications of an analysis of carbon tetrachloride consumption on a country-by-country basis, in the light of further information to be provided by countries by end of August 2002, the Task Force had been unable to conduct the investigation because of the lack of pertinent information submitted. Thus, no new figures had been calculated and the variation in the funding requirement under that component still lay between $35 million and $65 million.
Concerning sensitivity analyses in the production sector, new calculations had been made for Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela, based on the cost-effectiveness values of the production sector phase-out projects for China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea and India. Since there was no experience of methyl bromide production sector phase-out costs, the Task Force had estimated the implications on the funding requirement of a 20 per cent phase-out of methyl bromide production by 2005. Concerning non-investment activities, sensitivity analyses had been conducted on the effect of a plus or minus 20 per cent variation on the funding requirement for preparation or updating of country programmes. In addition, an analysis had been made of the effect of a plus or minus 15 per cent variation on the funding requirement for the operating costs of the Executive Committee and the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund.
The Meeting expressed thanks to the members of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Replenishment and to its Co-Chairs from Brazil and Finland, as well as to the TEAP Task Force on Replenishment.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that the work carried out by the TEAP Task Force gave a starting point for the consideration of the level of the replenishment of the Fund. He considered that it was impossible to overstate the importance of adequate funding to enable Article 5 Parties to meet the huge challenges they faced in meeting the upcoming reduction and phase-out targets, including the 50 per cent reduction of CFC consumption by 2005; the 20 per cent reduction in methyl bromide consumption by 2005; the 85 per cent reduction in carbon tetrachloride consumption by 2005; the freeze on methyl chloroform consumption at the 1998-2002 average levels by 2003; and the reduction in consumption of halons by 2005. If they were to meet their goals, as well as the tasks beyond the years 2005 and 2007, they needed to maintain a steady and sustained rhythm of ODS elimination, taking into account the time lag involved in the preparation and implementation of projects. They had to sustain the momentum and, if possible, anticipate the total phase-out. That was one of the tasks set out in the strategic plan adopted by the Executive Committee as a basic guide for activity over the implementation period. As far as possible, he urged that a part of the funding foreseen for the total phase-out should be already included in the funding for the next triennium.
The terms of reference for the TEAP Task Force replenishment study that were approved at the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties had meant that the Task Force had, basically, considered the existing decisions adopted by the Parties and the Executive Committee. While it had taken into account the technical issues, the representative considered that the Task force had not, nor could it have, taken into consideration certain specific issues. In the first place, the negative socio-economic impact on Article 5 Parties of the decisions on the phase-out of ODS had not been, nor could it have been, investigated in detail by the Task Force. Although it was very difficult to quantify such impacts, he believed that, on the basis of a decision linked to the level of replenishment, which could be viewed as a purely technical subject, there could be negative socio-economic consequences for the Article 5 Parties.
Secondly, it was necessary to recall that the strategic planning framework recognized that the related question of information and data merited priority action, since it formed the basis for the decision to be taken. In many other cases it had been acknowledged that the lack of reliable data was a problem which had not yet been solved satisfactorily. It was necessary to treat the information on which decisions were based with great caution since, with the exception of CFCs, the numbers relating to production and consumption of controlled substances showed significant variations. The decision to be taken on the level of the replenishment needed to include some provision to deal with that uncertainty. It needed to address the issue of new members operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. In addition, there were issues that needed to be considered in greater detail than in the Task Force report, such as low-volume consuming countries, metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) and consumption and production of carbon tetrachloride. In that light, the Group of 77 and China had prepared an amendment to the supplementary report of the Task Force. Although it did not directly address some of the concerns already raised, he considered that the summary would provide greater room to accommodate the needs which might arise as a result of the socio-economic impacts pertaining to low-volume consuming countries, MDIs and carbon tetrachloride consumption and production. In conclusion, he considered that, after carefully analysing the different components of the Multilateral Fund, the appropriate level of the replenishment should be $924.6 million. He was open to participate in any process of consultation in relation to that figure.
Many representatives from Article 5 Parties pointed to the fact that, in its assessment, the TEAP Task Force had focused only on technical aspects and had not been able to take into account a number of important additional issues that impacted on the level of the replenishment of the Fund. Those issues included: the socio-economic impacts on Article 5 Parties of the phase-out of ODS; the lack of relevant data, against the background of new circumstances and events; the fact that Article 5 Parties, through allowing tax and duty exemptions on equipment for ODS phase-out, were also making an indirect contribution to the Fund; the needs of the new Parties to the Protocol; the unreliability of the cost-effectiveness calculations; the need to take into account to a greater extent the provision of alternatives to ODS; and the particular needs of sectors not adequately addressed in the report, such as the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, the carbon tetrachloride consumption sector, MDIs and the chiller sub-sector.
One representative, noting that the Task Force in its supplementary report had created a country category for those consuming less than 100 tonnes of ODS, considered that such categorization was too broad. The interests and needs of the very low-volume-consuming countries, some of whom used less than 5 tonnes, should be taken into account in the TEAP assessment, since they faced the same burdens as the larger consumers in the setting up of monitoring systems and legislation for an ODS phase-out.
A number of representatives from Article 5 Parties said that it was necessary to maintain the momentum that had been achieved in the phase-out process in the Article 5 Parties, and an inadequate level of replenishment of the Fund brought the risk that much of what had been gained could be jeopardized. Because of inadequate funding, Article 5 Parties had faced enormous difficulties in meeting the 1999 CFC freeze. Without adequate funding this time around, they would have even greater difficulties in meeting their reduction schedules during the crucial 2005-2007 compliance period.
Another representative, speaking on behalf of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Yugoslavia) recalled the statement they had made during the twenty-second Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group concerning the creation of a new regional network. He urged the Meeting to take into consideration the need for activities that would facilitate regional cooperation on the same basis as in other regions of the world. It was very important for data reporting, prevention of illegal trade and policy setting to achieve the objectives of the Montreal Protocol. The costing needed to be taken into consideration in the replenishment.
One representative observed that Fund resources were additional to national resources and could not replace countries' own responsibility for their environmental and health issues. He believed there should be greater involvement of the private sector and of other international funding institutions in the funding of the phase-out of ODS.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the Like-minded Article 2 Parties, said that, while his group did not agree with all of the conclusions of the TEAP Task Force, the work that it had carried out, particularly the revision of the replenishment report, represented a good basis for beginning the discussions. He looked forward to discussions in a spirit of good will, in the belief that all were committed to the success of the Protocol and shared the goal of having an appropriate replenishment that would be sufficient to enable the compliance of all Article 5 Parties with their upcoming commitments. Supporting that view, one other representative from a non-Article 5 Party pointed to the need to be open to an overall increase in the Fund, around the higher range of what had been proposed by the Task Force. Another considered that it was necessary to guarantee the durability of projects and the benefits to the environment; those priorities needed to be taken into account in the decisions of the Executive Committee. A new constituent order for the Fund was required, at the very least at the level recommended by the TEAP Task Force.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States, considered that the TEAP Task Force reports were very helpful and would give a better background to the discussions on replenishment. The latest decisions by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, especially concerning carbon tetrachloride and methyl bromide, would be helpful in reducing the uncertainties in assessing the required level of funding, and should be fully taken into account. The success of the Montreal Protocol was largely to be attributed to the existence of the Multilateral Fund. In the last triennium, no single project had been refused because of a lack of resources in the Fund, and he was particularly proud of that achievement. He assured the Meeting that the European Union was ready to continue to assist the Article 5 Parties in their efforts to ensure compliance with their commitments under the Protocol. The member States of the European Union represented 45 per cent of the total pledges to the Fund, and he expressed their preparedness to engage themselves in fruitful discussions on the replenishment.
A representative from a non-Article 5 Party considered that it was necessary to make more effective use of the resources in the Fund. Noting that some of its resources still remained uncommitted, he sought information on the current level of the carry-over. Pointing to the delay in the payment of country contributions to the Fund and the sizeable level of outstanding contributions, he urged all non-Article 5 countries to pay their contributions in full and in a timely manner. He cautioned against the view that a new set of circumstances automatically implied a higher level of replenishment and highlighted the need for the replenishment to be based on realistic estimates.
Another representative from a non-Article 5 Party, expressing surprise at the level of replenishment proposed by the Group of 77 and China, considered that it was necessary to balance the needs of the Article 5 Parties with the budgetary constraints faced by a number of donor countries. He also encouraged countries to make donations to the Fund over and above the agreed level of their contributions.
An observer from an environmental non-governmental organization pointed out that the UNEP/WMO Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2002 had concluded that the elimination of all ODS production by 2003 would accelerate the recovery of the ozone layer by four years, and elimination of all ODS emissions by 2003 would accelerate recovery by 10 years. He questioned whether one could be blasé about any time frame that accelerated the recovery of the ozone layer and prevented the harmful consequences of ozone depletion. From an environmental perspective, the Fund should be replenished to a level that would enable Article 5 Parties to phase out all ODS at a rapidly accelerating pace.
The Meeting established a contact group on the replenishment, comprising 10 Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 (Botswana, Brazil, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Mauritius, Nigeria and Venezuela) and 10 non-Article 5 Parties (Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America), to consider the level of replenishment. The contact group was co chaired by Nigeria and Finland.
All representatives who took the floor expressed thanks to the Government of Italy for its hospitality and outstanding efforts in organizing the current Meeting.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the issue of the level of replenishment to the high-level segment for further consideration.
The Chief Officer of the Multilateral Fund Secretariat introduced document UNEP/OzL.Pro14/8 on the impact and consequences of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism. Explaining that it had been produced by the Secretariat in close cooperation with an external consultant, he suggested that the Meeting of the Parties might wish to hear a presentation from the consultant.
Mr. A. Brough, consultant to the Multilateral Fund Secretariat, explained that the document was essentially the same as the final report to the twenty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, except that the figures in it had been updated, generally to 15 October 2002.
He noted that, over the triennium, there had been sharp movements in most currencies against the United States dollar and that that pattern was continuing in the fourth quarter of 2002. While there was some truth in the view that these swings would eventually cancel one another out, the problem for the Secretariat was that it could never be sure what resources were available to it for planning.
Over the triennium, up to the date of document UNEP/OzL.Pro14/8, the use of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism had caused a total loss of some $23 million, equivalent to 5.25 per cent of the pledged contributions of all Parties. Since that date, however, there had been a further decline in the value of the United States dollar, bringing the loss down to some $19 million, or 4 per cent of contributions. With just a few weeks to go until the end of the year, and thus of the triennium, it remained to be seen what the final outcome would be, but that in turn underlined the uncertainty that the use of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism brought with it.
Those Parties that had made use of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism had certainly found that it had made budgetary administration easier, in that the amount of the contribution to be provided for in their national budgets was fixed in advance.
In general, payments using the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism had been made more promptly than had been the case prior to the introduction of the mechanism, but on the other hand those payments not under the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism had also been made more promptly than in the past.
He concluded by noting that there had been a consensus in the Open-ended Working Group that a trial period of one triennium (as mandated by the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties) was too short to determine the success or failure of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States, said that the European Union supported continuation of the implementation of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism and would be submitting a draft decision on the issue.
One representative recalled that the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism had been introduced on a trial basis with the purpose and objective of easing some of the contributing Parties' administrative difficulties due to commitments in other than their national currencies; promoting the timely payment of contributions; and ensuring that there was no adverse impact on the level of available resources of the Multilateral Fund. In the light of the detailed report, he saw little evidence that the mechanism had had any impact at all on the pattern of payment. There had been a reduction in resources available to the Fund, and in addition the mechanism had imposed a considerable additional administrative burden on the Treasurer, which had caused UNEP to ask for recovery of the full cost of maintaining the budget of the Multilateral Fund.
Other representatives took the view that the use of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism had, indeed, promoted more timely payment of contributions. Additionally, the certainty that it provided in countries' domestic budgetary procedures had been highly useful. Some suggested the use of a longer time span for calculation of the exchange rates of national currencies against the United States dollar.
One representative drew attention to paragraph 34 of document UNEP/OzL.Pro14/8, describing the practice currently followed by UNEP and by the Multilateral Fund up to 1999. Under that procedure, any shortfall resulting from the use of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism was reimbursed by the Party concerned. He also said there was a need to seek a compensation clause that would take into account any losses due to the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism.
Several representatives expressed the view that a number of other issues on the agenda of the Meeting had to be resolved before the issue of the fixed-exchange-rate mechanism could be considered.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the issue of the implementation of the fixed exchange rate mechanism to the high-level segment for further consideration.
The Meeting confirmed the positions of Australia, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Ghana and Jamaica as members of the Committee. It also noted the nominations of Italy, Lithuania, Maldives, Tunisia and Honduras and the withdrawal of Bolivia.
The Meeting endorsed the selection of Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Hungary, Japan and the United States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing non-Article 5 Parties to the Protocol and the selection of Bolivia, Burundi, El Salvador, India, Jordan, Mauritius and Saint Lucia as members representing Article 5 Parties, for one year effective 1 January 2003.
The Meeting endorsed the selection of Ms. Maria Nolan (United Kingdom) and Mr. Khaled Klaly (Syrian Arab Republic) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2003.
The Executive Secretary drew attention to the data reported by Parties, as contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro/14/3. He noted that 131 Parties had reported for 2001 and 157 for 2000. He said that the Implementation Committee had discussed the data in great detail, and would be submitting recommendations to the Parties.
The Executive Secretary reported that seven Parties had applied for essential-use exemptions for 2003 and 2004, amounting approximately to 6,000 and 5,000 tonnes respectively. Those figures represented a significant drop from the 16,000 tonnes approved for 1996, demonstrating that non-Article 5 Parties were moving to new technologies. The twenty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group had prepared a recommendation for a draft decision, which would be submitted to the Parties.
The representative of Uzbekistan said that her country's application for essential-use exemptions had not been included on the list, due to its late submission. It was agreed that the representative would meet with members of TEAP and the Ozone Secretariat to discuss the request.
The representative of Poland said that Poland had submitted essential-use exemption applications for CFC-113 and carbon tetrachloride for laboratory and analytical use that were not included in the list. Recalling decision XI/15, which eliminated certain uses from the global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses starting in 2002, he said that non-ODS alternatives were not yet fully developed and requested advice from TEAP on whether his country should therefore apply for an emergency-use exemption. A member of TEAP agreed that Poland should apply for an emergency-use exemption for the immediate time period.
One representative noted that the twenty-second meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group had considered a draft decision suggesting a regulatory standard with regard to destruction and recovery efficiency at 99.99 per cent for concentrated sources and 95 per cent for diluted sources. Another representative wondered if the standards proposed by TEAP were based on particular experiences and, if these were adopted, how many Parties would realistically be able to implement them. Another representative asked whether the standards were seen as targets or mandatory.
A member of TEAP said that this was a highly complicated area, as the choice of destruction efficiency had an influence on the portion destroyed and also had implications for the environmental acceptability of the destruction process and the cost. He suggested that there should be consultation between interested parties, including TEAP experts.
The Chair agreed that a contact group, chaired by the representative of Australia, would revise the conference room paper on the status of destruction technologies in consultation with interested parties and, possibly, TEAP consultants.
The representative of Australia introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on the status of destruction technologies, which had been revised in the light of consultations undertaken in an informal contact group.
Some representatives also proposed a number of additional amendments, all of which were accepted by the Meeting, on the understanding that the criteria for technology capability which already exist and the criteria for the operation of each facility which do not yet exist, are different.
The representative of Japan, while basically supporting the draft decision, marked a reservation pending further study of the most recent amendments.
Taking note of the reservation of Japan, the preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decision on the status of destruction technologies, as amended, to the high-level segment for approval.
A representative of the Ozone Secretariat introduced the item, recalling that in their Decision X/10, the Parties had agreed to revise the operation of the non-compliance procedure for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol no later than the end of 2003.
The representative of the United States, speaking as one of the sponsors, introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on the non-compliance procedure. He explained the proposed amendments to the procedure to allow increased continuity in the participation on the Implementation Committee; to speed up the timing for communication between the Ozone Secretariat and Parties to confirm compliance status; to urge Parties to submit information according to Article 7, paragraph 3, within a shorter time frame; to urge countries elected as members of the Implementation Committee to attend all meetings; and to take steps to ensure that language difficulties did not prevent the Committee from carrying out its obligations in a timely and effective manner. The overall aim of the proposed decision was to enable the Implementation Committee to meet its obligations to the Parties in a more timely and effective manner than in the past.
A number of representatives expressed support for elements of the draft decision, including the suggestion that outgoing members could be invited to participate, as observers, in an advisory capacity in the first meeting of the Implementation Committee subsequent to their leaving; as well as the proposal to request that steps be taken to overcome language difficulties in the Committee.
However, a number of representatives considered that the proposed amendments to the terms of office of members of the Implementation Committee could jeopardize the principles of equitable geographic distribution and rotation on which the Committee was based. It was also considered that, since many Article 5 countries already faced difficulties in providing data in a timely manner, any shortening of the period of time allowed for submission of data would place a further burden on them and would be difficult to implement.
One representative suggested that the whole of the non-compliance procedure should be reviewed to see what amendments needed to be made to the procedure to enable it to take the required actions to enable relevant Parties to return to a state of compliance expeditiously.
Noting that the proposed decision represented a package of necessary changes to the non-compliance procedure, and pointing to the lack of agreement on all elements of the proposal, the representative of the United States, with the concurrence of the other sponsors, withdrew the proposed decision.
The Executive Secretary introduced the item and drew attention to the study prepared by the Secretariat pursuant to decisions XII/10 and XIII/12 which contained an analysis of the problem of illegal trade in ODS, identification and tracking of such substances and enforcement measures against illegal trade at the national and international level. In pursuance of decision XIII/12 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, the matter had been discussed at the twenty-second Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and draft decisions had been forwarded for consideration by the current meeting. The decisions were contained in paragraphs 65 to 73 of the report of the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-second meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/22/6).
A number of representatives noted that several countries had proposed useful amendments to the draft report of the Open-ended Working Group. They suggested that the contact group should be reconvened to elaborate a final draft report for the consideration of the Parties. The Chair requested that the contact group on monitoring of illegal trade be reconvened, chaired by the representative of Poland, to consider amendments to the draft report of the Open-ended Working Group.
The representative of Poland introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision recommended by the twenty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, which had been revised in the light of consultations held in the informal contact group. He explained that the new draft was intended to improve on the former one by reintroducing some of the recommendations of the study of the Secretariat and by strengthening cooperation between the Parties. He further explained that the clarifications of the differences between controlled substances, mixtures containing controlled substances and products containing controlled substances included in the draft decision would require no new actions on the part of Parties, but were designed to assist customs agencies in monitoring trade.
One representative queried the proposal to encourage Parties to report cases of illegal trade in ODS containing products, stating that he was unclear what the term meant in the context of the Montreal Protocol. Other representatives believed that the reports on illegal trade to be collected by the Secretariat would in themselves help to throw light on this issue, and that it was known that some illegal trade took place via this route.
A number of representatives sought to know what action should be taken regarding illegally imported quantities of substances seized by customs agencies. One representative observed that Article 5 Parties could come under pressure from multinational companies in this regard; he quoted an example where his Government had recently destroyed banned products and had been asked to reimburse the operator. The representative of Poland clarified that the disposal of seized products was a matter for the Government concerned; Article 5 Parties, where consumption was still allowed, could sell them at auction, export them or stockpile them, though of course the quantities thus disposed of would then count against their own consumption limits. Destruction was also a possibility, but may pose problems of cost and practicality.
Many representatives drew attention to the need for capacity-building in Article 5 Parties, particularly in terms of customs training and equipment, in order to control illegal trade effectively. One representative noted that, due to a lack of a well established customs department and control systems, his country was facing trade in refrigeration equipment containing CFC-12, which was destroying its commercial markets. Another representative suggested that the work of UNEP/DTIE on training of customs officers should be reviewed to see how helpful it was to Parties. He noted that such training had proved to be extremely effective in his country, where there was very close cooperation between the customs department and the ozone unit.
Another representative underlined the need for unified international action to prevent illegal trade, with regular exchanges of information between Parties. Several representatives stressed the value of regional networks in facilitating this information exchange, and also of the desirability of the Secretariat carrying out missions to Parties to assist them in mitigating illegal trade.
A number of representatives observed that the draft decision already provided for the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to consider carrying out an evaluation of customs training and licensing system projects in tackling illegal trade. One representative, however, suggested that this was not sufficient and proposed to add a further paragraph requesting the Executive Committee to provide financial and technical assistance to Article 5 Parties to support the introduction of inspection technologies, and to make this a priority. Another representative stated that his country could not accept this proposal without a clear understanding of the financial implications and the impact on the other priorities of the Executive Committee.
Following consultations, the representative of Poland proposed modified language aiming to clarify the request to Parties to provide information on fully proved cases of illegal trade, on the disposal of seized substances and on the provision of financial and technical assistance from the Executive Committee. Some representatives proposed additional language stating that seized quantities would not count against a Party's consumption only if they were neither exported nor placed on its own market, but other representatives felt that the implications of this wording were unclear.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the decision on the monitoring of illegal trade to the high-level segment for further consideration.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the European Community and its member States, said that the European Community was working with others to put forward a draft decision on the need for a global database on metered-dose inhalers (MDIs).
Another representative pointed to the need for a forum for appropriate transfer of technology for MDIs and requested that this be included in the draft decision.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the European Community and its member States, introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on a global database to determine appropriate measures to complete the transition from CFC MDIs. He said that, while he was aware of the considerable effort that had been made by MDI manufacturers to develop, seek approval for, and launch CFC-free inhalers, he also noted that some developed countries that had applied for essential-use CFCs had not yet filed transition strategies with the Ozone Secretariat. He therefore believed that the global database would be a useful tool for determining the appropriate amounts of essential use CFCs for MDIs for the nominating Party, for TEAP and for the Parties. The production of essential-use CFCs needed to be kept to the absolute minimum. The essential-use process must be seen as an exemption process and not "business as usual". The nominating Party, TEAP and the Parties should be able to agree on the appropriate volume of CFCs with reference to a common global database of alternatives. No such global database currently existed.
The information requested from Parties in the proposal, he said, could be used in many ways. For example, the global database of alternatives could be used to determine which alternatives were already sold on particular markets and therefore a decision could be made to consider not allocating CFCs for MDIs where alternatives already existed. One could also consider not allocating CFCs in cases where one should avoid disrupting the marketing of CFC-free MDIs, when the CFC-MDI remained on the market too long after the introduction of the alternative. He noted that the European Community already had a global database that was well developed and, since it accounted for the majority of exports, the European Community would be the major contributor to the database which would be posted on the Ozone Secretariat web site.
Another representative, noting that the proposal represented the first attempt to formulate a national strategy for MDIs, considered that it would only be successful if it set out clear rules for conversion of the national MDI production sector. Other representatives stressed the importance of technology transfer to meet the needs of the Article 5 countries. One of them considered that the Executive Committee and the implementing agencies had not given sufficient consideration to accelerating the phase-out of CFCs in the MDI sector, and Parties had not received adequate support from the Multilateral Fund.
Several representatives pointed to the problem of submitting their information on CFC and non-CFC MDIs within the time frame set out in the proposal. One representative suggested that Parties request the Executive Committee to make the necessary arrangements to support Article 5 countries in gathering data on the MDI sector for the database. Another proposed that TEAP be requested to prepare a report on the issue, on the basis of information to be submitted by May 2003. One representative said that TEAP should develop a questionnaire to help the countries concerned to complete the tasks specified in the proposal, within an expanded time frame.
One representative pointed to the need to also take into account other techniques for the control of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); the possibility of expanding the time frame for submission of information to the end of February 2003; the need to obtain information about the price disparity between CFC and non-CFC treatments; and the need to submit the relevant information to TEAP.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the European Community and its members States, introduced a conference room paper containing a revised draft decision on a global database and assessment to determine appropriate measures to complete the transition from chlorofluorocarbons metered-dose inhalers.
One representative, noting that the revised draft decision accommodated most of the concerns expressed by the Parties, suggested that the request for each Party or regional economic integration organization to submit information by 28 February 2003 did not provide sufficient time for such information to be gathered. He asked that the document be further revised to accommodate that consideration.
The sponsor for the draft decision noted that he expected that some information would be available by 28 February 2003 and that another year would elapse before submission of further information would be required.
Responding to a question as to why the draft decision did not request TEAP to make a recommendation, the sponsor of the draft decision explained that TEAP would be expected to report in its annual assessment.
The representative of the European Community, speaking also on behalf of its member States, introduced a conference room paper containing a revised draft decision on a global database and assessment to determine appropriate measures to complete the transition from chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhalers.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decision on a global database and assessment to determine appropriate measures to complete the transition from chlorofluorocarbon metered-dose inhalers to the high-level segment for approval.
One representative said that a new draft decision on the reduction of emissions of controlled substances from process agent uses and emissions-reduction techniques and alternative processes not using ODS had been submitted jointly by several sponsors.
Following a discussion, the Co-Chair noted that there was no consensus on the issue and the draft decision was withdrawn.
The representative of Poland introduced the draft decision on this item noting that it had not been discussed widely during the twenty-second Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group and gave brief background information on the item. It had been noticed that, despite the fact that terms such as "recovered ODS" and "recycled ODS" had been precisely defined in decision IV/24, the terms were not used uniformly in some other decisions of the Parties. The term "used ODS" had never been defined under the Montreal Protocol and in some instances was taken to mean recovered, while in others it was taken to mean recovered, reclaimed or recycled. It was understood that attempting detailed clarifications of previously made decisions would cause problems for other Parties which had already introduced the explanations to their legal systems, but some action was deemed necessary.
A number of representatives agreed that making changes to existing guidelines would cause problems and some countries might be forced to rewrite and re-ratify their legislation. One representative suggested that, in order to ensure that similar problems did not arise in the future, the decision on the item might delineate past problems with all definitions covered and provide an operative paragraph that urged Parties to take those problems into account and to be very precise in their definitions, based on the concerns expressed.
The Meeting agreed to ask Poland to hold consultations with interested parties with the aim of re-drafting the decision. Following informal consultations, the preparatory segment decided to forward the decision on clarification of terminology relating to ozone-depleting substances to the high-level segment for approval.
Introducing the item, a representative of the Secretariat noted that, at its twenty-second meeting, the Open-ended Working Group had agreed to include this issue on the agenda for consideration by the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, specifying that any discussion should be limited to consideration of the decision by the Meeting of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Information paper UNEP/OzL/Pro.14/INF/5 included the decision that had been adopted by the eighth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States, noted that a draft decision was being prepared to mirror the decision of the eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change.
One representative expressed disappointment at the decision by the eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change and the response by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice which detailed the nature of the proposed report that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was to prepare with TEAP. She said that the final form of the decision contained shortcomings, including the lack of a clear description of gases; the use of the report format rather than web site format, which meant that it would rapidly become outdated; and the absence of an information policy or a clearing-house mechanism. In addition, the technical information did not include benchmarks for ODS alternative substances and the financial implications for the Montreal Protocol were unclear. Furthermore, the report did not appear to be timely. Three years were to elapse before the completion date and that would be too late for these countries which were currently in the process of preparing hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and perfluorocarbon (PFC) replacement decisions. However, in the spirit of maintaining a positive relationship with the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change, her delegation would not oppose the decision, provided the financial implications of TEAP involvement were clarified and that TEAP confirmed that the report would not interfere with its other obligations. Several other representatives concurred with her views.
Another representative said that HFCs and PFCs continued to be very important substitutes for ODS. He noted that his understanding of the agreement reached during the eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change was that the respective bodies of the two Conventions should develop a balanced scientific and technical relevant policy report, which included analysis of policy elements. That should be done on the condition that existing data sources were used and no additional burden was placed on the secretariats involved. With respect to the policy-related part of the report, the work should respect the obligations of the Parties under each Convention, including the phase-out of ODS consumption and production and the phase-out of greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention on Climate Change. He noted that the relevant experts should be called upon to participate in the examination of relevant substances.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States, introduced a conference room paper co-sponsored by Norway containing a draft decision on the relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate system: issues relating to HFCs and PFCs.
One representative recalled that, at the twenty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, Parties had agreed to include the issue on the agenda of the current Meeting, on the understanding that discussion would be limited only to consideration of decision X/CP.8, taken at the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change. He considered that, in line with that understanding, any decision of the current Meeting should mirror the decision X/CP.8. Considering that the draft decision currently before the Parties did not stick to the agreement reached at the twenty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, he proposed amendments to the text. Some other representatives supported that view.
Another representative, noting that no environmental problem existed in isolation from others, believed it was useful for the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to consider issues pertaining to HFCs and PFCs. One other representative said there was a need to strengthen the links between the Montreal Protocol and the Convention on Climate Change.
Following consultations, one representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States, said that decision X/CP.8 of the eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change was very clear. The Multilateral Fund was funding activities encouraging the use of greenhouse gases, and it was inconceivable that the decision X/CP.8 could not be viewed in the context of the Montreal Protocol. He stated that the position of the European Union was consistent with decision X/16 of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties, on implementation of the Montreal Protocol in the light of the Kyoto Protocol. While he was prepared to accept some amendment of the proposal submitted, he was unable to accept a Montreal Protocol decision that was inconsistent with decision X/CP.8 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change.
Many other representatives expressed support for the draft decision and for the position of the European Union and its member States. Several of them stressed that the draft decision referred to an information gathering exercise, and could not understand why that was not considered to be relevant. Another noted that synergies between environmental conventions were usually encouraged, and some representatives considered that the Montreal Protocol needed to work more closely with the institutions dealing with climate change.
One representative pointed out that his Government had a very specific policy on climate change issues and in that connection he was seeking further guidance on the present draft decision. He considered that, since decision XI/17 of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties already authorized TEAP to work with climate change institutions, no further decision of the Meeting of the Parties on that subject was needed at the current time.
The observer from an environmental non-governmental organization said that the eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change invited TEAP and IPCC to develop a balanced scientific, technical and policy-relevant special report on issues related to HFCs and PFCs. Since the Montreal Protocol did fund, and thus encouraged, the large-scale use of HFCs it therefore had, at minimum, an ethical responsibility for the consequences of such use. As such, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol should be keenly interested in the findings of the proposed IPCC/TEAP study that could provide them with valuable, up-to-date information and assist the Parties in making further funding and policy decisions. He asked how the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols could possibly harmonize their mandates to protect the ozone layer while safeguarding the climate if one body refused to consider relevant data of mutual concern. He urged Parties to welcome the proposed report and to direct the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to limit the funding of HFC projects to those few applications where there were truly no environmentally safer alternatives.
The preparatory segment decided to forward to the high-level segment for approval, the draft decision on the relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate change system: issues relating to HFCs and PFCs.
The President of the Implementation Committee presented a summary of the report of the twenty-ninth meeting of the Implementation Committee. He drew the meeting's attention to the rate of data reporting, of about 50 per cent of Parties within the nine-month period specified by Article 7. Although that was an improvement on previous years, he hoped it would improve further. Several Article 5 Parties had yet to report any data, and several others had still to report one or more years' baseline data. The Committee called upon them to work with the implementing agencies and the Secretariat to report those data as soon as possible.
Four Article 5 Parties had reported partial data which placed them in a potential state of non-compliance, and three non-Article 5 Parties had reported consumption for 2000 above their control limits. The Committee had proposed draft decisions calling upon the Parties concerned to report or clarify the appropriate data as a matter of urgency. Seven Parties had requested changes in their baseline data, and the Committee had decided that four of them had provided sufficient information to justify the changes. The other three would be asked to provide more information to the next meeting of the Committee.
The majority of the Committee's recommended draft decisions dealt with the issue of non-compliance by particular Parties. It was inevitable that this number would rise as Parties moved further towards total phase-out of all ODS, but the Committee was pleased to note that several Parties listed in the previous year under decisions of the Parties had already achieved compliance: Argentina, Chad, Honduras, Mongolia, Niger, Oman, Peru and Samoa.
Nine draft decisions dealt with Parties which had reported data showing them to be in non-compliance in the control period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. The decisions repeated the language used in similar decisions at the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, requesting the Party to submit a plan of action to the Implementation Committee, including time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. A further six decisions covered Parties which were identified as being in non-compliance in decisions of the Parties in 2001; in most cases the Committee had agreed a plan of action with the Party to bring them back into compliance, and in some cases sufficient steps had already been taken. In the case of Armenia, the Party's situation would change if its request for reclassification as a developing country operating under Article 5 were to be accepted; the Committee would keep the situation under review. Only in the case of Cameroon had the Committee not yet been able to agree a plan of action.
The final decision dealt with the Russian Federation, and the President was pleased to confirm, after successive recommendations of the Implementation Committee and decisions of Meetings of the Parties starting in 1995, that the Russian Federation had now returned to compliance with its obligations. This was an illustration, he believed, of the success of the non-compliance system of the Montreal Protocol, a system widely regarded as a model for other multilateral environmental agreements.
The representative of Maldives stated that he had explained to the Ozone Secretariat that his country's state of non-compliance had resulted from a large volume of imports in one year, and that no further imports would be permitted for the following two years. The representative of the Secretariat clarified that this by itself would not guarantee that annual consumption levels would fall below the control levels. The Committee was still requesting an action plan, and would be pleased to invite the representative of Maldives to the next meeting of the Committee to explain his country's situation with regard to compliance.
The representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that his country's baseline data had been calculated during a period of wartime and were therefore unrealistically low; he asked for the understanding of the meeting.
The representative of Yemen stated that he had participated in the twenty-eighth meeting of the Committee, and had provided further information on his country's request for a baseline change. He had assumed that this would be sufficient to allow resolution of the issue at the Committee's recent meeting, and he did not understand why it had not been so. The President explained that a change in baseline data was an important matter which the Committee considered very carefully. The information provided by Yemen was very welcome but it was still not complete, and he looked forward to being able to consider the issue again at the next meeting of the Committee.
One representative asked why every Party whose status of non-compliance was under discussion by the Implementation Committee should not be invited to present their case. He believed that dialogue between Parties and the Committee was very important, and he hoped that the new post requested by the Secretariat would facilitate the Committee's work. He also expressed his regret that the large number of draft decisions recommended by the Committee had only just become available to the meeting.
The Secretariat explained that Parties were not normally invited to attend the Committee on the first occasion that their status was considered. The Committee considered the data that had been submitted to it, together with any remarks by the implementing agencies and, if the data showed that the Party was not in compliance, the Committee requested clarification of the data, and a plan of action designed to bring the Party back into compliance. Where the issues were more complex, or where the plan needed to be discussed, the Party was invited to attend a meeting.
Members of the Committee also explained that, while they appreciated the concerns raised by Parties, the Committee's deliberations depended on the quality and timeliness of the data submitted to it. Late or unclear reporting of data made the Secretariat's and Committee's work very difficult, but the Committee never took its decisions lightly. One member of the Committee added that Australia, the European Community, New Zealand and the United States had hoped to address those difficulties, and to assist the smooth operation of the Committee, by submitting their proposals for reforms to the non-compliance procedure.
The President of the Committee also introduced a corrigendum dealing with the draft decision on non-compliance with consumption phase-out by non-Article 5 Parties in 2000. He explained that Ukraine should not have been included in the draft decision, as under the terms of Decision X/27 it was still in compliance. He apologized to Ukraine on behalf of the Committee and the Secretariat.
The representative of the Maldives noted with disappointment that the draft decision dealing with the Maldives was still being put forward without reference to its request to have the report reflect the fact that it had submitted its plan of action to the Ozone Secretariat. He explained that his Government recognized that it was in non-compliance, due to an unusually high volume of imports in one year, resulting from the fact that the supplier was not willing to sell less than one container load of substances, but said that it had adopted and submitted a comprehensive plan of action to deal with the problem. This included a licensing system which had been implemented in March 2002, ODS import quotas to be implemented from 1 January 2003, government control of CFC stockpiles, proposals to ban the import of ODS-using equipment by January-February 2003, the conversion of ODS-using mobile air-conditioning systems, and a temporary ban on imports of CFC-12 from 1 January 2003 to 2005. He considered that this was sufficient to deal with the issue of non-compliance by the Maldives, and that language reflecting the adoption of the action plan should be included in the draft decision. If it could not be, he would have to express his reservations on the contents of the report. He believed that other low-volume-consuming countries were likely to find themselves in a similar situation, and that the Implementation Committee should take proper account of this, and encourage Parties to adopt plans of action rather than to ignore them.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decisions on compliance matters and data reporting to the high-level segment for approval.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking as Chair of the Budget Committee, composed of the representatives of Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Georgia, Japan, Malawi, New Zealand, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom and the United States of America, reported on the deliberations of the Committee. He drew the attention of the preparatory segment to two conference room papers, containing, respectively, a draft decision on the Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer; and a draft decision on the Trust Fund of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
He reported that participants had held very intensive discussions on the documents "The Financial Report on the Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer for the Biennium 2000-2001 and Expenditure for 2001 as Compared to the Approved Budget" (UNEP/OzL.Conv.6/4) and "Approved 2002, Revised 2003 and Proposed 2004, 2005 and 2006 Budgets for the Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (UNEP/OzL.Conv.6/5).
The Committee had also deliberated on the documents "The Financial Report on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer for the Biennium 2000-2001 and Expenditure for 2001 as Compared to the Approved Budget" (UNEP/OzL.Pro/14/4) and "Approved 2002 and Proposed 2003 and 2004 Budgets for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/5).
The members of the informal group had expressed high appreciation for the excellent management of the above-mentioned Trust Funds that had led to the savings in 2001 in both Trust Funds (Vienna Convention $155,986; Montreal Protocol $1,186,869). In that context, the Budget Committee commented very positively on the information in the chapter entitled "Development of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer," as contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/INF/3. The actual total reserve in that Trust Fund stood at $8,623,262, including interest income of $2,381,222.
The Committee was aware of the necessity to keep the grand total budget at the level acceptable to all Parties. The aim was to promote the goals of "zero nominal growth", to avoid the large accumulation of the budget surplus, including of interest income, not to increase the financial burdens of the Parties and, at the same time, to create the most favourable conditions for further fulfilment of the tasks and targets by the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol in the very important period after the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The highest priority should be paid to monitoring and assisting Parties in complying with the Montreal Protocol obligations and to the more active dissemination of information. That was why the Budget Committee was recommending to the Parties to agree with the establishment of new posts – one under the Vienna Convention (Programme Officer – Communication and Information).
As could be seen from the draft decision the Budget Committee recommended the budget of the Trust fund for the Vienna Convention for 2003 in the amount of $449,690; for 2004 in the amount of $559,689; for 2005 in the amount of $1,233,169; and proposing for 2006 the amount of $556,299. The Committee recommended, from the year 2004, an increase in the amount drawn down from the Trust Fund balance from the current $75,000 to $100,000, and to divide the saving from the 2001 budget to the years 2003 and 2005, respectively.
In the draft decision for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol, the Committee had taken into account the Parties' decisions from the Twelfth and Thirteenth Meetings of the Parties, and had recommended the budget for 2003 in the amount of $3,855,220 and a proposed 2004 budget in the amount of $3,921,664. To further reduce the contribution of the Parties for 2003 and 2004, a draw down of $250,000 was recommended to be made from the interest income annually accruing to the Fund. Together with drawdowns from the reserve and from unspent balances of the years 2000 and 2001, that was a reasonable move to decrease the level of surplus in future years, following the recommendations by many Parties.
In spite of the fact that the level of total contributions from the Parties was decreasing, the Budget Committee appealed to Parties to pay their contributions promptly and in full.
The Budget Committee also discussed the same amendment to "The Terms of Reference for the Administration of Trust Funds for the Vienna Convention and for the Montreal Protocol" (UNEP/OzL.Conv.6/6, UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/7) that reflected General Assembly resolutions 55/5 B-F of 23 December 2000, changing the criteria and elements used in the United Nations scale of contributions. In that context, the amendment to paragraph 4 of "The Terms of Reference for the Administration of Trust Funds for the Vienna Convention and for the Montreal Protocol" was proposed. The amendment was included in the respective draft decisions on Trust Funds. The majority of Parties participating at the meeting of the Committee had supported that proposal. During the discussions in the Budget Committee, the representative of Brazil, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, stated that paragraph 3 of Part C of General Assembly resolution 55/5, Part C should also be considered in discussing that matter by Parties.
He concluded his report by thanking the representatives of those interested Parties that had taken part in the Budget Committee for their active and positive approach.
During the discussion of the draft decisions, the representative of Brazil wished to record a reservation concerning the reference in paragraph 12 of the draft decision on the Trust Fund of the Montreal Protocol, and paragraph 8 of the draft decision on the Trust Fund of the Vienna Convention, which in both cases referred to the decision to amend paragraph 4 of the terms of reference for the administration of the Trust Funds by substituting 25 per cent by 22 per cent in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly resolution through its decision A/RES/55/5 B-F of 23 December 2000. The reservation introduced by the delegation of Brazil was based on paragraph 3, part C of the same United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/5 B-F of 23 December 2000.
The representative of Argentina wished the report of the Meeting to reflect that the Government of Argentina reserved the right to request a revision of the scale of contributions to the Trust Funds of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol concerning Argentina's contribution, in conformity with what the United Nations General Assembly might decide, with the aim of reducing the percentage assigned to Argentina for 2003 and subsequent years.
The representative of China, noting that China had carefully studied General Assembly resolution 55/5 of 23 December 2000, said that the resolution clearly pointed out that the scale of assessment should not automatically apply to United Nations specialized agencies or other organizations. While he appreciated the Secretariat's management of the Trust Funds, he wished to point out that increasing the contributions according to the United Nations scale of assessments was not the only solution. For example, the contributions of those that were more able to pay could be considered. He thus wished to record a reservation on the draft decisions on the Trust Funds of the Vienna Convention and of the Montreal Protocol submitted by the Budget Committee.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decision on the Trust Fund for the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer; as well as the draft decision on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to the high-level segment for approval.
The representative of Armenia said that, after long hesitation, Armenia now wished to be reclassified as a developing country operating under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, on the basis of its small size, low gross domestic production and low level of ODS consumption, and its status as a developing country in many other intergovernmental organizations. A number of representatives spoke in favour of the reclassification, with several of them suggesting the stipulation that Armenia should not request funding from the Multilateral Fund until it had ratified the London Amendment. The representative of Armenia said that the process of ratification of the London Amendment had already begun. The procedure was very protracted, but there was no opposition in the country to the ratification.
In responding to a question from one representative, the Secretariat stated that Armenia's CFC consumption was 0.01kg per capita per year, below the threshold required for Article 5 Party classification.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decision on Armenia's application for reclassification to the high-level segment for approval.
had submitted a strategic national plan that explicitly proposed that the Party would be out of compliance for some period of time. They had also arisen in individual project proposals where the Party submitted associated documentation that forecast its future non-compliance.
A number of representatives expressed concern that the issue of non-compliance could constitute a barrier in the future to the approval of projects. Additionally, some cases of non-compliance arose precisely out of the lack of resources, or inadequate transfer of technology, which the Multilateral Fund was intended to rectify. Some representatives considered that a gulf was being created between the two Committees, whereas their roles were complementary and they should work in harmony. Saying that no Article 5 Party that had ratified the Montreal Protocol would be reluctant to make efforts towards compliance, several representatives called for a flexible approach to be adapted to cases of non-compliance. Other representatives, pointing out that the purpose of the Multilateral Fund was to ensure compliance, said that it would not be right for it to introduce measures that would push Article 5 Parties further into non-compliance.
The representative of the United States stressed that the overall aim of the draft decision was to accelerate the approval of projects for countries that were, or might be, in a state of non-compliance. In the present situation, if the Executive Committee was required to deal with such projects, it was obliged to wait until the Implementation Committee had examined the situation and the Meeting of the Parties had made a decision on it, which could mean that up to a whole year was lost. He also stressed that approval of projects for countries in non-compliance was certainly not to be taken as indicating that the Executive Committee approved of such non-compliance. On the contrary, those projects were to be approved specifically without prejudice to non-compliance procedure or to any decision by the Parties on the non-compliance.
The representative of the United States introduced a further conference room paper containing a draft decision on the interaction between the Executive Committee and the Implementation Committee, which had been revised in the light of consultations undertaken in an informal contact group.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decision on the interaction between the Executive Committee and the Implementation Committee, as amended from the floor, to the high-level segment for approval.
The representative of the Dominican Republic introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide. He explained that a number of Article 5 Parties wanted to pursue an accelerated phase-out of methyl bromide and, in this, they were encouraged by the alternatives to methyl bromide use made available by the non-Article 5 countries. However, with a view to seeking the equitability of market supplies, it was necessary to take into account the implications of critical-use exemptions for the non-Article 5 countries and to ensure that such exemptions did not put the Article 5 countries in a disadvantageous market situation. Thus, the proposed decision requested TEAP to conduct an analysis of the potential implications that critical-use exemptions might have on the sustainability of the phase-out efforts in both Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries. He stressed that the proposal did not aim to prevent any Party from obtaining a critical-use exemption, but simply aimed to clarify the issue with regard to commercial and trade concerns, not just for the present, but also for after 2005.
One representative recalled that, in 1997, the Parties had agreed to the methyl bromide phase-out schedule only on the understanding that there would be clear exemptions for critical use. While alternatives for methyl bromide were available, and were still being researched, the situations and needs of all countries were different. Critical-use exemptions were reviewed very carefully in line with those needs. The current proposal, however, sought to change the criteria under which they were reviewed. While the issues of trade and competitiveness were very serious, it was imperative that Parties continue to review the critical-use exemptions on the basis of the good criteria already developed.
Several representatives expressed support for the proposal. One representative observed that applications in some countries for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide were already higher than annual consumption, and compromised the credibility of the efforts under the Montreal Protocol and the encouragement given to Article 5 Parties to implement phase-out. The study requested in the draft decision was needed, and TEAP should be mandated to carry it out. The representative of an environmental non-governmental organization agreed, describing the critical-use exemption procedure as the Achilles' heel of the Protocol.
Two observers pointed to the fact that, while much effort and funding had been expended on the search for alternatives to methyl bromide, viable alternatives for use in every case had not yet been found. Parties, agriculture and industry still needed critical-use exemptions, and there needed to be an assessment of the impact of the phasing out of methyl bromide. A policy was required that took into account the legitimate concerns of agriculture and trade, while protecting the environment. The Montreal Protocol's steps for reductions in the use of methyl bromide were a critical blow, and should be halted until safe and viable alternatives had been designed and implemented. Some representatives expressed concern at the suggestion that the alternatives to methyl bromide were ineffective, and reiterated their support for the proposed decision.
One representative, expressing confusion over the proposal, observed that the Executive Committee had recently approved a proposal for methyl bromide phase-out in the Dominican Republic, and said that he did not understand what impact the proposed studies were supposed to have on the completion of the project.
A number of representatives believed that while the proposal had some merit, it was premature. One recalled that TEAP was already conducting a study, to be published in early 2003, on which discussions on possible adjustments to the methyl bromide phase-out schedule would be based. The representative of the European Community announced that the Community was planning to run a workshop on alternatives to methyl bromide before the next meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, featuring many experts from Article 5 Parties; he welcomed attendance at the event.
The preparatory segment decided to forward, in square brackets, the draft decision on critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide to the high-level segment for further consideration.
The representative of Kenya introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on the establishment of procedures and modalities for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide in Article 5(1) Parties. He explained that many Article 5 Parties were committed to phasing out methyl bromide earlier than the 2015 target date, some as early as 2004. However, the Protocol did not provide for critical-use exemptions for Article 5 Parties before 2015, unlike non-Article 5 Parties, which will be permitted critical use exemption from 2005. His decision therefore requested TEAP to establish procedures and modalities for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for Article 5 Parties which committed to phase-out before 2015.
Several representatives thanked Kenya for raising the issue, which was clearly of growing importance. However, some representatives felt that, like the draft decision submitted by the Dominican Republic, it would be preferable to discuss the issue in the context of the discussions on methyl bromide phase-out that were planned for 2003.
The preparatory segment decided to forward, in square brackets, the draft decision on the establishment of procedures and modalities for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide in Article 5(1) Parties to the high-level segment for further consideration.
In considering the above item, the Meeting had before it a conference room paper containing a draft decision on the service sector and chillers.
Several representatives expressed support for the draft decision, and some amendments were proposed from the floor. Some representatives considered the proposal to be extremely important, since it concerned the medium- and low-volume-consuming countries and their ability to meet their obligations.
One representative recalled that the Executive Committee had in the past considered that, with regard to chillers, because of the great savings incurred and the short payback time, no incremental costs arose that were eligible for funding under the Multilateral Fund. To date, such projects had been funded on the basis of a loan. The Executive Committee had requested the preparation of a paper on chillers and their eligibility for funding. There was a distinct lack of information on the subject. He considered that a decision along the lines proposed had potentially great implications for the Multilateral Fund, and to accept it without first undertaking an investigation of the subject would be premature.
The representative of Cuba introduced a conference room paper containing a revised draft decision on development of policies governing the service sector and chillers.
The preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decision on development of policies governing the service sector and chillers, as amended from the floor, to the high-level segment for approval.
The representative of Georgia introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on the creation of a regional network of the Central and Eastern European countries operating under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol. He noted that the countries of the region were committed to implementation of their Montreal Protocol control obligations, which would be facilitated by regional cooperation among them. He expressed the view that the countries in that region were missing the opportunity provided by the regional consultations which had been available for other Article 5 countries in other regions, and were, in fact, working in isolation.
Several representatives from countries in the region spoke in support of the draft decision. They noted that the countries contained 120 million people, and accounted for 7,000 tonnes of ODS consumption. Noting that all of the countries were easily reached from Vienna, one of them suggested that the United Nations Industrial Development Organization might be the correct implementing agency to help set up such a network.
Some representatives of countries outside the region also spoke in favour of the draft decision, noting that it would be advisable to allow the region to benefit from the advantages that had been experienced with regional networks elsewhere in the world. Others, however, expressed uncertainty as to the financial implications of such a network, and doubt as to what degree of financial priority should be granted to it, in the light of many other claims on limited financial resources.
Following further discussion, the representative of Georgia withdrew the draft decision noting that he would pursue the issue at another forum.
The representative of Colombia, on behalf also of Canada and New Zealand, introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on the relationship between the Montreal Protocol and the World Trade Organization (WTO). He explained that the Fourth Ministerial meeting of WTO in November 2001 in Doha had adopted a declaration deciding to undertake negotiations on the relationship between WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements containing trade measures, to establish procedures for regular information exchange between the secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements and of WTO, and to consider the possibility of observer status for secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements on the WTO's Committee on Trade and Environment. That Committee had already invited a number of multilateral environmental agreement secretariats to some of its meetings. The draft decision therefore requested the Ozone Secretariat to inform Parties of any meetings if attended, whether as an invitee or an observer, to monitor developments in the Committee and to report to the Meeting of the Parties, and to coordinate with the Multilateral Fund Secretariat and to consult with the Parties and the members of the Executive Committee, before giving any information to WTO. He hoped that this would improve Parties' awareness of these important negotiations within WTO and the relationship between WTO rules and the trade provisions of the Protocol.
Many representatives welcomed the draft decision. Some of them wondered why coordination with the Multilateral Fund secretariat was felt to be necessary, but other representatives believed that the decisions of the Fund Secretariat and Executive Committee could have implications for trade, and that it was important that a coordinated viewpoint was put forward to WTO. Some representatives also felt that the proposal to consult with the members of the Executive Committee was unnecessary.
Some representatives argued that it was important to distinguish between the types of information to be given to WTO by the Ozone Secretariat. If the information was of a general nature about the trade provisions of the Protocol, then it would be acceptable for the Secretariat to proceed to give it to WTO; if they had any doubts, they could consult with Parties, and with the Executive Committee if the matter related to the Multilateral Fund. If the issue was a question of interpretation of the trade provisions of the Protocol, however, representatives felt that the only body qualified to deliver such information was the Meeting of the Parties, and that such a matter had to be referred to the next Meeting. A number of modifications to the wording of the draft decision were proposed to meet these concerns, and some were accepted. The representative of Switzerland, however, stated that he wished his Government to be consulted on any matter concerning the relationship between the Montreal Protocol and WTO.
Following the discussion, the preparatory segment decided to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for approval.
One representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States, introduced a conference room paper containing a draft decision on consideration of the use of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for the Classification and Labelling of Chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. He observed that GHS symbols were under consideration and, although not mandatory in nature, were useful to countries that had not developed a system of their own. Since a number of ODS would remain in trade for years after their phase-out, use of the GHS symbol would raise awareness of the ODS and help countries in their decisions.
Several representatives requested clarification of the meaning of elements of the proposal and pointed to the need for amendments.
Following consultations in an informal contact group, the preparatory segment decided to forward the decision on the consideration of the use of the Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labelling of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer to the high-level segment for further consideration.
In response to a request for an update on the relationship between the Ozone Secretariat and WTO, the Secretariat explained that its request for observer status on the Committee on Trade and Environment of WTO was still pending and therefore there was no further action to report.