UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/53/4

united
nations / ep
UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/53/4

/ United Nations
Environment
Programme / Distr.: General
10 December 2014
Original: English

Implementation Committee under the
Non-Compliance Procedure for the
Montreal Protocol

Fifty-third meeting

Paris, 14 and 15 November 2014

Report of the Implementation Committee under the NonCompliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol on the work of its fifty-third meeting

I. Opening of the meeting

A. Opening statements

1.  The fifty-third meeting of the Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol was held at the headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, on 14 and 15 November 2014.

2.  The President of the Committee, Ms. Azra Rogović-Grubić (Bosnia and Herzegovina), opened the meeting at 10 a.m. on 14 November 2014.

3.  Ms. Tina Birmpili, Executive Secretary, Ozone Secretariat, welcomed the representatives of the members of the Committee. After outlining the items on the agenda, she noted that the number of parties in non-compliance with the Protocol was steadily declining and that no party had ever been persistently in non-compliance. That, she said, was testament to the benefits of the Committee’s close monitoring of compliance and proactive approach, and it would not have been possible without the technical and financial assistance provided by the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol and the close involvement of the implementing agencies. Thanking those members of the Committee for whom the current meeting would be their last, she pledged the Secretariat’s readiness to do all that was necessary to assist the Committee in its deliberations.

B. Attendance

4.  Representatives of the following Committee members attended the meeting: Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Italy, Lebanon and Poland. Morocco was not represented at the meeting.

5.  Representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and South Sudan attended the meeting at the Committee’s invitation to provide information on their countries’ non-compliance situations.

6.  The meeting was also attended by representatives of the secretariat of the Multilateral Fund and representatives of the implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund – the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the UnitedNations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the World Bank. The Global Environment Facility (GEF), which provides appropriate funding to eligible countries with economies in transition, was also represented at the meeting.

7.  A list of participants is set out in annex II to the present report.

II. Adoption of the agenda and organization of work

A. Adoption of the agenda

8.  The Committee adopted the following agenda on the basis of the provisional agenda (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/53/R.1):

  1. Opening of the meeting.
  2. Adoption of the agenda and organization of work.
  3. Presentation by the Secretariat on data and information under Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol and on related issues.
  4. Presentation by the secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol on relevant decisions of the Executive Committee of the Fund and on activities carried out by implementing agencies (the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and the World Bank) to facilitate compliance by parties.
  5. Follow-up on previous decisions of the parties and recommendations of the Implementation Committee on non-compliance-related issues:

(a)  Data-reporting obligations:

(i) Ukraine (decision XXIV/18)

(ii) South Sudan (decision XXV/14 and recommendation 52/1);

(b)  Other recommendations and decisions on compliance: Israel (recommendation 52/4).

  1. Non-compliance with hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and request for assistance.
  2. Consideration of other possible non-compliance issues arising out of the data report.
  3. Requests for change in baseline data (decisions XIII/15 and XV/19): review of information on requests for change in baseline data.
  4. Status of establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol (decision XXV/15 and recommendation 52/5).
  5. Consideration of additional information on compliance-related submissions by parties participating in the meeting at the invitation of the Implementation Committee.
  6. Other matters.
  7. Adoption of the recommendations and report of the meeting.
  8. Closure of the meeting.

B. Organization of work

9.  The Committee agreed to follow its procedures and to meet according to its usual schedule of two 3-hour sessions per day, subject to adjustment as appropriate.

III. Presentation by the Secretariat on data and information under Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol and on related issues

10.  The representative of the Secretariat gave a presentation summarizing the report of the Secretariat on the data provided by parties in accordance with Articles 7 and 9 of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/53/2/Rev.1 and Add.1/Rev.1).

11.  Regarding the status of ratification, he said that only Mauritania had yet to ratify the Beijing Amendment; otherwise, universal ratification of all amendments to the Montreal Protocol had been achieved. On reporting information pursuant to Article 9, only Lithuania had submitted information for 2013, while for 2012 Lithuania and Sweden had submitted relevant information, which had all been posted in the “data reporting” section of the secretariat website. With regard to annual data reporting under Article 7 for 2013, 195 of 197 parties had thus far reported, with only the Central African Republic and Liechtenstein yet to report their data. For the period 1986–2012, all 197 parties had complied with their annual data reporting requirements under Article 7. South Sudan, which had not reported its data for 2012 by the fifty-second meeting of the Committee (recommendation 52/1), had since done so.

12.  Turning to compliance with the control measures of the Protocol for 2013, he recalled that the matter of non-compliance by Kazakhstan had been considered by the Committee at its fifty-second meeting, and a draft decision had been forwarded to the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties for its consideration under recommendation 52/2. Two other parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol (non-Article 5 parties) had yet to respond to requests by the Secretariat for clarification of the status of their compliance with the control measures. For countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol (Article 5 parties), cases of non-compliance with the control measures for HCFCs had been raised at and since the fifty-second meeting of the Committee with regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Guatemala; those cases would be considered at the current meeting of the Committee. Five other Article 5 parties had yet to clarify their compliance status and, in line with the non-compliance procedure, the Secretariat had been in communication with those parties to clarify their status. Any unresolved cases would be brought before the Committee at its fifty-fourth meeting.

13.  Turning next to exemptions for essential uses of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and critical uses of methyl bromide, he recalled that the matter had been reported on at the fifty-second meeting and that all parties with exemptions had submitted their reports accounting for their use of CFCs or methyl bromide in accordance with those exemptions. On the matter of reporting on exports and imports for 2012 and 2013, he said that statistics for 2012 had been presented to the Committee at its fifty-second meeting, while statistics for 2013 would be presented in 2015 once all the data had been processed.

14.  With regard to the reporting of stockpiled excess production or consumption of ozone-depleting substances, information for 2012 had again been presented to the Committee at its fifty-second meeting. Israel, which by that meeting, had not confirmed that it had in place measures to ensure that the substances were not used for purposes other than those specified in paragraph 1 of decision XVIII/17, had since confirmed that it had such measures in place, thereby complying with the Committee’s recommendation 52/4. For 2013, three parties – the European Union, France and the United States of America – had confirmed the existence of measures to prevent the diversion of stockpiles to other uses, while Israel had provided partial information on some of its stockpiles but had yet to provide full information. With regard to reporting on process-agent uses of ozone-depleting substances, the four parties still allowed such uses – China, the European Union, Israel and the United States of America – had submitted their reports for 2012, but Israel had yet to submit its report for 2013. Matters on which information had been provided at the previous meeting, and for which there were no updates to be considered at the current meeting, included the production of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride and other phased-out substances; feedstock uses of ozone-depleting substances; destruction of ozonedepleting substances; and the calculation of production and consumption.

15.  Regarding requests for the revision of HCFC baseline data, he recalled that requests by Libya and Mozambique had been recommended for approval by the Committee at its fifty-second meeting (recommendation 52/3). A new request by the Republic of Moldova would be considered at the current meeting.

16.  Finally he presented, as requested by the Committee, an analysis of the responses by parties to decision XXIV/14 of the Meeting of the Parties, which requested parties to affirmatively specify zero quantities – rather than simply leaving blank cells – in their Article 7 data reporting forms. He said that for 2012, 72 of 197 parties (37 per cent) had submitted forms with some blank cells; of those, 15 (21per cent) had responded to a Secretariat request for clarification, with all indicating that the blank cells had in fact represented zeroes. An analysis of the matter with regard to the 2013 data would be presented to the Committee at its next meeting.

17.  In the ensuing discussion, one representative expressed concern that many parties were still submitting reporting forms with blank cells and that few of those parties were responding to requests from the Secretariat for clarification. He also expressed concern that the number of parties using ozone-depleting substances as feedstock had remained relatively stable while the amounts used as feedstock had increased significantly. In addition, he queried the lack of information in the Secretariat’s report on the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment applications, given that reporting on that matter was obligatory under paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Protocol. He also asked if any information had been obtained from Kazakhstan on the sources of bromochloromethane imported into that country. Responding, the representative of the Secretariat said that data on quarantine and pre-shipment applications were available on the secretariat website, broken down by country. In response to the request of the party, however, the Secretariat would also include such data in its future reports on data reporting under articles 7. On the sources of bromochloromethane imported into Kazakhstan, he said that the Secretariat had sought information from the Party but had not received a response.

18.  The Committee took note of the information presented.

19.  The Committee therefore agreed to urge all parties, when reporting data on production, imports, exports or destruction of ozone-depleting substances, to enter a number in each cell in their submitted data reporting forms, including zero, rather than leaving any cell blank, in accordance with decision XXIV/14, and to provide clarification to the Ozone Secretariat regarding any blank cells when requested to do so.

Recommendation 53/1

IV. Presentation by the secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol on relevant decisions of the Executive Committee of the Fund and on activities carried out by implementing agencies (the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and the World Bank) to facilitate compliance by parties

20.  The representative of the Multilateral Fund secretariat reported on relevant decisions of the Executive Committee of the Fund and on activities carried out by the implementing agencies (the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and the World Bank) to facilitate compliance by parties.

21.  With regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide, only China, still produced it, and the amount produced in 2013 (100 ODP-tonnes) fell below both the compliance target of 20 per cent of baseline and the level allowed under the party’s agreement with the Executive Committee to phase out that substance. A request for the last tranche of the approved funding had been agreed at the seventy-third meeting of the Fund’s Executive Committee.

22.  With regard to consumption of methyl bromide, investment projects in 16 countries were still under way, but all 16 were in compliance with the 2005 control measures. Additional phase-out projects for Tunisia and Sudan had been approved at the seventy-third meeting of the Executive Committee.

23.  With regard to the phase-out of HCFCs, seven Article 5 parties had HCFC production sector baselines approved by the Executive Committee: Argentina, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Mexico, the Republic of Korea and Venezuela. An HCFC production sector phase-out plan for China had been approved at the sixty-ninth meeting of the Executive Committee, for a value of up to $385 million. At its seventysecond meeting the Committee had approved the second tranche of funding, and five producers had been awarded contracts for the permanent closure and dismantling of 43,000 tonnes of HCFC-22 and 45,000 tonnes of HCFC-141b production capacity. All other Article 5 parties, except for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, had CFC agreements with the Executive Committee that precluded any additional funding for HCFC production phase-out. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea appeared to be in non-compliance with the control measures, given that its 2013 production level of 31.8 ODP-tonnes was higher than its baseline level of 27.6ODP-tonnes. The country had not yet, however, submitted the required preliminary data for the preparation and submission of a request to the Executive Committee for funding.

24.  With regard to the consumption of HCFCs, all eligible Article 5 parties had received funding for the preparation of HCFC phase-out management plans. Only five (Botswana, Libya, Mauritania, South Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic) did not yet have approved plans, Botswana and South Sudan because they did not yet have operational licensing systems, and Libya because UNIDO could not confirm the status of its licensing system. Civil unrest in the Syrian Arab Republic had affected the re-submission of its plan, and an administrative audit under way in Mauritania had delayed the preparation and submission of its plan.