Download Non-paper - A factual record of the key issues raised during the

Non-paper
A factual record of the key issues raised during the intersessional
informal meeting on the feasibility and ways of managing
hydrofluorocarbons
I.
Introduction
1.
The intersessional informal meeting on the feasibility and ways of managing hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) was held at the Vienna International Centre on 12 and 13 June 2015.
2.
The meeting was opened at 10.20 a.m. on Friday, 12 June 2015, and chaired by co-conveners Mr.
Patrick McInerney (Australia) and Mr. Rafael Da Soler (Brazil).
3.
The meeting was attended by representatives of 17 parties; Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil,
Canada, China, European Union, Japan, Kuwait, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Saint Lucia,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Switzerland, United States of America and Zimbabwe, as well as the two co-chairs
of the Open-ended Working Group and the representative of the United Arab Emirates as the host of the
Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties in 2015. The following parties were invited but were unable to
attend: India, Mexico, South Africa and Uruguay.
4.
Participants in the informal meeting discussed the challenges set out in annex II to the report of the
thirty-fifth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/35/6), focusing on some of
the key issues for each challenge and on a number of overarching issues, which, it was agreed, would
require a common understanding were HFCs to be addressed under the Montreal Protocol. During the first
day of the meeting, one representative, supported by others, requested the co-conveners to prepare a text
proposal to enable a focused discussion. On the second day, the co-conveners distributed a proposal on the
mandate of a possible contact group, based on the main points raised by the representatives during the
discussions of the previous day. The ensuing discussion largely hinged on the text of the co-conveners’
proposal.
5.
days.
II.
The present document summarizes the key points of the discussions that took place over the two
Scope of the meeting
6.
Mr. McInerney recalled the scope of the consultation, emanating from the decision of the
Open-ended Working Group, at its thirty-fifth meeting, that it would continue to work intersessionally in
an informal manner to study the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs, including, inter alia, the related
challenges set out in annex II to the report of the thirty-fifth meeting of the Working Group, with a view to
the establishment of a contact group on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs at its thirty-sixth
meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/35/6).
7.
The informal intersessional consultation should therefore consider: first, the feasibility and ways of
managing HFCs, including the related challenges listed by the Working Group, and, second, the issues to
be addressed by a possible contact group on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs should the
thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group decide to establish one.
8.
A letter had been sent to parties on 27 May 2015 inviting written submissions on the challenges
and solutions in relation to the way forward. One response had been received from the European Union
and it had been circulated.
9.
He drew attention to four informal briefing notes prepared by the secretariat in order to provide
background information on technical, funding, policy and ecological issues in relation to the feasibility of
managing HFCs, as well as an update on the follow-up actions with the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change on synergies related to HFCs. The briefing notes and the update are
available at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/workshops/hfcs-intersessional-informalconsultation/SitePages/Home.aspx.
10.
Mr. Da Soler urged participants to take advantage of the informal nature of the consultation to
strive for agreement by means of frank exchanges.
III.
A.
Challenges and mandate of a possible contact group
General discussion
11.
Some representatives expressed the view that the Montreal Protocol represented an appropriate
forum for phasing down HFCs owing to the proven effectiveness of the Multilateral Fund, which was one
of the few freestanding financial mechanisms for a multilateral environmental agreement; the provision of
country-level support, including through institutional-strengthening, under the Protocol; its compliance
assistance programme; and its long and successful history of technology transfer.
12.
One representative described three fundamental reasons for considering an amendment to the
Montreal Protocol in order to address HFCs. First, the link between reduction measures, and financial and
technical assistance - without an amendment or control measures for HFCs under the Montreal Protocol,
there would be limitations to the provision of funding or technical assistance. Second, the principle built
into the Protocol of multilateral cooperation and a common commitment to protecting the environment.
Third, the importance of the signal that would be sent to the global community and to industry on the
necessity of action on HFCs. He noted that it was, nevertheless, important not to prejudge the outcome of
discussions on a possible amendment to the Protocol.
13.
One representative said that it was important to clarify the legitimacy of the use of the Montreal
Protocol to manage HFCs, which were not ozone-depleting substances. He stressed the need to prove
either that HFCs could or could not be managed without an amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
14.
Some representatives emphasized the need to focus on the way forward, finding innovative ways
and flexible measures to reassure countries that had expressed particular concerns in relation to addressing
HFCs. A number of representatives highlighted the importance of providing the Open-ended Working
Group at its thirty-sixth meeting with a possible way forward on HFCs with a view to the possible
establishment of a contact group on the issue, noting that parties were looking to participants in the
informal consultation for specific guidance in order for more effective use of time at the thirty-sixth
meeting.
15.
One representative said that certain parties would not move forward to a contact group until they
were satisfied that their concerns would be addressed, including with regard to exemptions for high
ambient temperature countries. He emphasized the importance in any possible contact group on the
management of HFCs of the principle that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, which was
supported by a number of other representatives.
16.
A number of representatives expressed the view that agreement had been reached on discussing the
need for a contact group on HFCs and said that sufficient time should therefore be spent at the present
meeting in considering its possible mandate. One representative said that discussions on HFC management
must be approached in a fair, transparent and predictable manner; a contact group would provide the
optimal means for doing so. Another representative said that the establishment of a contact group did not
have any implications for the future; it merely provided a forum for discussion on a specific issue. In
particular, the establishment of a contact group did not mean that parties had agreed to amend the Protocol.
It was to be hoped, therefore, that agreement could be reached on the establishment of a contact group on
HFCs at the thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. Two representatives, recalling
negative experiences in contact groups in which they felt their views had not been taken into account,
expressed reservations regarding the operation of a contact group on HFCs.
17.
One representative, supported by others, suggested that a formal contact group could consider,
among other things, which HFCs should be considered for phase-down, sectors to be addressed, phasedown schedules, exemptions, including for high ambient temperature situations, and MDIs, as well as a
financial mechanism. These issues were all components of the amendment proposals that had been
submitted for consideration.
18.
One representative said that the four amendment proposals relating to HFCs provided a variety of
means of addressing the availability of alternatives by providing flexibility and a long-term signal in
setting out a phase-down schedule.
19.
One representative said that the North American amendment proposal aimed to use the Montreal
Protocol as a structured way to phase down HFCs, using the concepts and principles embedded in the
instrument and allowing for differentiated time schedules for parties operating under paragraph 1 of
Article 5 (Article 5 parties) and parties not so operating (non-Article 5 parties). The proposal included the
provision of financial assistance and capacity-building to Article 5 parties and continued use of existing
national ozone units for a phase-down of HFCs. One of the reasons for the success of the Montreal
Protocol was that it reflected the special situation of Article 5 parties in specific ways, he said. The North
American amendment proposal provided for a mid-term review to address specific concerns with regard to
the lack of efficient and effective alternatives in some sectors. A technical review could provide a safety
valve for phase-down, affording the opportunity to look back at the entire schedule.
20.
The representative of the Federated States of Micronesia said that his country’s amendment
proposal included the full list of HFCs, not to suggest that those with low-GWP should be phased down,
but in order that even those with low-GWP could be tracked with the Harmonized Commodity Description
and Coding System (Harmonized System) for monitoring trade, including illegal trade.
21.
One representative suggested that proposals to amend the Montreal Protocol were not feasible.
According to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, enshrined in the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the prime responsibility for mitigation activities rested with
developed rather than developing parties. While it was important not to prejudge the outcome of the
negotiations on the Durban Platform and at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties to the
Framework Convention on Climate Change, at present mitigation activities were voluntary for developing
countries. An amendment to the Montreal Protocol for the phase-down of HFCs on the basis of global
warming potential (GWP) would force developing countries to pay for mitigation. The amendment
proposals therefore afforded developed countries a means to by-pass their commitments, absolving them
of their responsibilities and also enabling them to profit by means of the production of alternatives.
22.
Another representative expressed the view that the amendment proposals were mutually supportive
and fully consistent with the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Although the principle of
common but differentiated responsibilities was not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Montreal
Protocol, the instrument was implemented on the basis of that principle, with differentiated schedules for
Article 5 and non-Article 5 parties. Under the Protocol, developing countries undertook to phase out
substances on the basis of assistance from the Multilateral Fund, which funded the agreed incremental
costs. The North American amendment proposal, for instance, rather than making developing countries
responsible for financing, would ensure that they had access to training, finance, technology transfer and
capacity-building in order to phase down HFCs. An amendment to the Montreal Protocol would avoid
Article 5 parties being left behind and dependent on older, less efficient technologies while non-Article 5
parties moved to new technologies. He drew attention to a report entitled The Montreal Protocol and the
Green Economy: Assessing the Contributions and Co-Benefits of a Multilateral Environmental Agreement,
the conclusion of which was that the Montreal Protocol had provided technical and design innovations,
helped countries to compete better in the world market and to expand production, generated energy
efficiency improvements and not resulted in higher prices to consumers; indeed, in some cases, enterprises
had been able to pass on lower costs to consumers. Rather than causing a loss of jobs, the Montreal
Protocol had brought about a shift in employment towards jobs with better skills and training. He noted,
however, in agreement with many other representatives who spoke on the matter, that any decision on
HFCs should ensure flexibility in implementation.
23.
It was generally agreed that any new commitment on the management of HFCs should be based on
principles that had historically formed the basis of the Protocol, including differentiated schedules, the
provision of financial and technical assistance, capacity-building and technology transfer, and flexibility in
implementation.
24.
One representative said that in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities,
developed countries should take action first on HFCs with an adequate grace period for developing
countries, which could, nevertheless, take early action on a voluntary basis if they so wished.
25.
Another representative pointed out that article 5 of the Protocol focused on the special situation of
developing countries; specific mechanisms were devoted to helping such countries move forward on their
control obligations.
26.
One representative said that just a few of the 18 to 22 HFCs available on the market had a high
GWP. It was likely therefore that only a few such substances needed to be phased out. He requested the
secretariat to compile a list of HFCs, providing the alternative technologies available for each alongside
their cost, advantages and disadvantages for each region and application. He also requested further
analysis with real-time data on the kind of warming caused by HFCs, the contribution of each HFC to
global warming, and more information on the methodology of studies carried out, including how sampling
had been undertaken for individual HFCs and where samples had been taken from. He noted that
concentrations of certain gases in the atmosphere were not homogeneous; it was important to understand
how studies were undertaken – whether based on atomic spectrometry or gas studies – and what kind of
scientific tests had been carried out to determine their concentrations in the atmosphere. The contribution
of HFCs to global warming had been assessed as being low. He suggested the need for third party
validation of studies emanating from scientific organizations linked to the proposers of amendments to the
Montreal Protocol. Describing his concerns with regard to the existing science on HFCs, he suggested that
just a handful of countries or a few specific industries, such as the refrigeration and foam industries, might
be responsible for the vast majority of HFC emissions, which would require a targeted approach to their
reduction.
27.
Several representatives drew attention to existing sources of information on HFCs, including
numerous reports by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), such as the TEAP report
to be considered by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-sixth meeting in July 2015, and a 2011
UNEP synthesis report entitled HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, which
provided specific detail on atmospheric abundances. One representative highlighted the reports of the
Scientific Assessment Panel, which represented a comprehensive analysis of the relevant science, and the
opportunity that parties had to guide the issues covered in such reports. She suggested that any remaining
concerns on the science on HFCs could be tackled by parties during the development at the end of 2015 of
the terms of reference for the next SAP report. Similarly, if the technological answers required were not
available in the existing TEAP assessment reports, it would be important to make specific requests to the
Panel. One representative said that it was established practice to request TEAP to provide information by
sector on the availability of alternatives and their environmental impacts, among other things.
28.
Several representatives suggested that existing information could be set out in a different format
for ease of reference. A number of representatives thanked the secretariat for the useful information
contained in table 4 on rates of market penetration of selected low-GWP alternatives in the briefing note
on technical issues on the feasibility of managing HFCs, suggesting that it might be updated by the
secretariat in order to provide more complete information. One representative said that table 4.1 in the
advance copy of the TEAP June 2015 decision XXVI/9 task force report on additional information on
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances1 provided information on the status of the various refrigerants in
the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector. She suggested that TEAP could combine that table with the
table prepared by the secretariat to show more complete information for each chemical and sector,
including alternatives and penetration thereof.
29.
A number of representatives said that while the current atmospheric effects of HFCs were not of
great concern, predicted growth rates suggested that they would have a very significant impact on the
atmosphere in the future. One representative stressed the need to focus on limiting consumption and
emissions of HFCs with high GWP, while another said that a focus on GWP as the unit considered, in the
same way that ozone-depleting potential had been considered for ozone-depleting substances, would
facilitate the establishment of a list of HFCs to be controlled. One representative said that 15 of 22 HFCs
had a GWP hundreds or thousands of times greater than that of carbon dioxide (CO 2).
30.
One representative said that the sources of HFC emissions and the main emitters were very well
understood. In the case of HFC-23, it was linked to a few countries where it was used in production, while
HFC-134a, which had a higher measured abundance, was used everywhere. Such information was
available in reports of SAP and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
31.
A number of representatives suggested that it was important to discuss whether all or only some
HFCs needed to be controlled; the number to be controlled in the current amendment proposals varied
between 19 and 22.
1
Available from: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg36/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/TEAP_Task-Force-XXVI-9_Report-June2015.pdf.
32.
One representative emphasized that much more information was available on HFCs than had been
available on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and alternatives thereto, in 1987 when parties had agreed to
phase out CFCs. Nevertheless, alternatives had emerged over the following decade, thereby contributing to
the success of the Montreal Protocol. It was surprising, he said, that an alternative was seemingly required
for every application before parties could agree to move forward on HFCs. The potential phase-down for
Article 5 parties of 85 per cent of HFCs was planned to take place over a 30-year period, not culminating
until 2045. He agreed that additional information should be sought from scientific bodies to ensure that the
approach adopted to HFCs could be designed and adjusted to take into account the most up-to-date and
relevant information on alternatives.
33.
One representative stressed the difference between the present situation and the situation of the
CFC phase-out, for which non-Article 5 parties had adopted alternative technologies with Article 5 parties
following suit a decade later. In terms of HFCs, Article 5 parties were being encouraged to adopt
technologies that had not yet been adopted by non-Article 5 parties in the face of significant challenges
such as flammability. She drew attention to six explosions in Asia and two in Spain related to the use of
alternatives, noting that technicians in developing countries were often unaware of the flammability of
mixtures.
34.
One representative recalled the widespread use of the precautionary principle as a basis for
multilateral environmental agreements in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence.
B.
Key issues
35.
Important issues to consider in relation to the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs were
described by many representatives as high ambient temperature considerations, exemptions, flexibility in
implementation including based on national circumstances, synergies with the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, the availability of alternatives and technologies, and non-party trade
provisions.
36.
Several representatives sought information from others on the specific challenges faced in their
countries with regard to HFCs, with a number noting that solutions to such challenges could be based on
policies driving technology solutions. One representative emphasized the need to prioritize a “shopping
list” of challenges on HFCs. Establishing trust would go a long way to overcoming obstacles to moving
forward on the management of HFCs. In many ways, he said, Article 5 parties had become the teachers
rather than the students in terms of HFC discussions.
1.
High ambient temperature countries and exemptions
37.
Many representatives highlighted concerns about the performance of alternatives to HFCs in high
ambient temperatures, noting that this had been widely recognized for some time as a fundamental issue in
the management of HFCs. One representative asked whether flexibility could be accorded to countries
with high ambient temperatures in order to reassure them that their concerns were being taken seriously.
Several representatives said that the high ambient temperature issue was clearly linked to exemptions.
38.
One representative highlighted the need for more detailed information on very technical aspects,
including the specific problems related to refrigerants in equipment in high ambient temperature countries.
Given that HFCs were not good alternatives for HCFC-22 (R-22) in high ambient temperatures, it might
be useful to look at alternatives to HCFC-22 as a starting point. Another concurred on the need for
alternatives to HCFC-22 in high ambient temperatures.
39.
One representative said that it was important to ascertain whether exemptions would relate to the
HCFC or HFC schedule. There were real technical challenges, he said, with regard to performance in the
air-conditioning sector in high ambient temperature countries, but these were largely confined to splitsystem air conditioners. It was also important to define “high ambient temperature countries or
conditions”, either by naming specific countries or by assessing countries against rational standardized
criteria such as the number of cooling days, the average annual temperature or the average monthly
temperature.
40.
Several representatives concurred on the importance of the interlinkages between HCFCs and
HFCs, with one stressing the need to consider the issue of conversion from R-22 to R-410A and noting
that some countries had already had projects to convert to R-410A approved by the Executive Committee
of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol.
41.
Several representatives noted the need to consider how the scope of different schedules could be
used to provide flexibility for countries dealing with high ambient temperature conditions, addressing the
lack of alternatives for certain applications. It was crucial, said one, to ensure that developing countries in
tropical areas had access to equipment that was vital for human well-being in their regions.
42.
One representative said that the management of HFCs in high ambient temperature countries might
be addressed by substituting HFCs in some sectors and allowing continued consumption in others.
Consideration should be given to the cost and benefits of specific schedules for specific sectors and
countries or considering a global approach. It would be important to understand the global quantity of
HFCs implicated in high ambient temperature conditions.
43.
A number of representatives agreed that an exemption should not avoid the need for action in the
development of alternatives, but make such action easier to achieve over time. One said that an exemption
would provide a grace period until such time as better alternatives became available. Another noted that
different processes existed under the Montreal Protocol, with some providing for annual review and
approval, while others were longer-term processes. Exemptions should be time-bound rather than lasting
forever, he said.
44.
One representative emphasized the need to discuss exemptions in tandem with commitments.
Several representatives spoke of the need for a modified exemption procedure for phase-down.
45.
A number of representatives cautioned that without providing for the concomitant production of
HFCs, exemptions for consumption would be meaningless. One representative suggested that if a
substance was the subject of control measures, producers were unlikely to continue production for minimal
quantities. Another representative concurred on the need to ensure production to cover exemptions, noting
that this could be accommodated by a number of existing mechanisms under the Montreal Protocol,
including production transfer allowances and production for basic domestic needs. Another representative
suggested that exemptions might be required for countries that manufactured and exported equipment to
high ambient temperature countries.
46.
One representative said that it was important to seek solutions beyond merely providing
exemptions, emphasizing the importance of fair and appropriate technology transfer for high ambient
temperature countries.
2.
Funding, and financial and technical assistance
47.
The issue of funding was generally described as being of prime importance in managing HFCs.
Several representatives stressed the need for a commitment to maintain the Multilateral Fund as the
financial mechanism and to increase the funding available for any action on HFCs. One representative said
that funding for HFC phase-down should be additional and sufficient. Another highlighted the possibility
of funding incremental costs through the Multilateral Fund. One said that one of the main principles of the
Multilateral Fund was that incremental costs should be covered by the Fund in order to avoid Article 5
countries bearing the burden of such costs and to enable their compliance with control measures. There
was consensus on the importance of financial and technical assistance for developing countries and on
maintaining the Multilateral Fund as the instrument to provide such assistance.
48.
One representative highlighted the need to analyse financial costs not only for the manufacture of
alternatives but also in terms of operating costs for their use.
49.
One representative said that while the Framework Convention on Climate Change mandated the
developed countries to take part in mitigation and made such action voluntary for the developing
countries, there were moves under the Montreal Protocol to try and compel the developing countries to
finance mitigation. He queried the flexibility of the Montreal Protocol, which provided incremental costs
rather than providing all the financing required for phase-out activities. He reiterated that while the
responsibilities of developing countries under the Framework Convention on Climate Change were limited
to adaptation and they were not required to report their emissions, the proposed amendments to the
Montreal Protocol would make mitigation activities binding for developing countries. He said that the full
cost of HFC phase-down needed to be covered by the Multilateral Fund.
3.
Alternatives
50.
A number of representatives said that a phase-down of HFCs was being considered and not a
phase-out because it was acknowledged that for certain applications there were currently no safe or energy
efficient alternatives. One representative said that in considering political solutions to address technical
issues, it was necessary to be creative, suggesting that it might be useful to think about the need for and
size of a residual market in HFCs.
51.
Several representatives drew attention to the lack of availability of alternatives for metered-dose
inhalers (MDIs). One representative said that for alternatives for other applications, there was concern
about safety, toxicity, energy efficiency, charge size and issues related to implementation, among other
things, which would affect the extent to which and the pace at which HFCs could be phased down.
Different approaches were required for the production sector and the consumption sector; less than 20
countries were implicated in the former, while the latter was relevant to any country with a significant
number of cars and other vehicles, and refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.
52.
One representative said that one of the presenters at the Ozone2Climate technology roadshow and
industry roundtable, held in the Republic of Korea in March 2015, had suggested that it was unlikely that
many new alternatives to HFCs would become available. Some alternatives were so poisonous or
corrosive that they could never safely be used. Another representative clarified that the presentation had
referred to discovering new molecules rather than combining or blending existing and known components
to improve performance. One representative said that new molecules were often submitted to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency for review and consideration of aspects such as safety, toxicity
and a broad range of environmental impacts.
53.
Several representatives highlighted the reluctance of some parties to use alternatives owing to
flammability or toxicity considerations. One representative said that certain countries or regions had
considerable experience in ensuring the safe use of such substances, including through the development of
new technologies. It was important to continue to discuss how to make alternatives and technologies
available and to update and make available safety standards.
54.
One representative, noting that industry representatives in her country found it difficult to make
their own choices on alternative technologies, stressed the importance of equal opportunity for
alternatives. She suggested that the use of hydrocarbons instead of HFCs in applications in high ambient
temperatures could work well if managed properly.
55.
One representative, emphasizing the importance of addressing HFC management in Article 5
parties, said that in her country the selection of alternatives for HCFCs had been a lengthy process
involving representatives of industry; as a consequence HFCs were now widely used. In the light of the
investment required for HCFC phase-out, the current move away from the use of HFCs, which had
replaced HCFCs, was problematic. She noted that in previous discussions on the management of HFCs,
emphasis had been placed on the development of national inventories of HFCs, Harmonized System codes
and communication by the secretariat with the World Customs Organization on such codes. Such
inventories were important to clarify the level of consumption in different countries and possible solutions.
4.
Flexibility
56.
Some representatives spoke of the need for flexibility in the implementation of an HFC phasedown and in selecting alternatives. One representative emphasized the importance of flexibility such that
Article 5 parties could develop their own strategies, prioritize sectors and technology choices, taking into
account issues such as availability and cost according to their particular circumstances. She highlighted the
importance of adopting a clear and transparent approach to determining cost-effectiveness, possibly
through the adoption of a standard or methodology.
57.
One representative suggested that flexibility had been lost under the Montreal Protocol with the
introduction of HCFC Phase-out Management Plans; some parties had been encouraged to move to
alternatives and then found themselves in difficult situations owing to unforeseen availability and cost
issues.
5.
Measures taken at the national level
58.
One representative said that hydrocarbons rather than HFCs had been used for domestic
refrigeration for around a decade in her country. R-290 was accepted by manufacturers as a sound
alternative owing to its very good energy performance. One representative drew attention to the challenge
of flammability for hydrocarbons, while another said that hydrocarbons were not used in his country
because of the lack of training of technicians and the likelihood of accidents and harm to people and
property.
59.
One representative said that development was required at the technical level before new market
penetration could be achieved. He drew attention to a variety of measures in use in his region, including
policy measures and a regulatory framework that provided strong incentives for the development of new
low-GWP alternatives and limited HFC supply on the market. The final intention in his region was to
reduce average GWP of HFCs in use from 2,000 to 400. He explained that the 400 average GWP would be
the result of a limitation of quantities derived from the consideration of the quantity of refrigerant per
metric tonne and the available HFC quotas calculated in CO 2-equivalent. Decisions such as which sector
would use higher-GWP substances were entirely left to the market; capping and limiting the quantities
available in CO2-equivalent led to an overall reduction in GWP. Remarkable progress had been achieved,
as evidenced in the 2015 report of the TEAP as compared with its 2010 report.
60.
Another representative said that his country had introduced some eighteen months earlier a ban on
certain applications that used HFCs in the refrigeration sector with the intention of updating the ban as
other sectors or subsectors moved to alternatives.
61.
One representative said that her country was taking concrete action on motor vehicle
air-conditioning and aerosols, among other things. It was important that each country could implement
activities based on their national circumstances.
6.
Synergies with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
62.
Many representatives stressed the need to exploit synergies between the Montreal Protocol and the
Framework Convention on Climate Change. One representative highlighted the importance of establishing
a formal relationship with the secretariat of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and several
supported the establishment of a working group, to include members of the secretariat and representatives
of parties to the Protocol and the Framework Convention, to consider all the possible options in amending
the Protocol to address HFCs and associated synergies and collaboration. A number of representatives
suggested that it would be important for legal experts to provide an opinion on any agreement on
addressing HFCs between the Montreal Protocol and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
63.
One representative said that the Montreal Protocol had never worked in isolation from the climate
regime; parties were committed to policy coherence on related issues.
7.
Other issues
64.
One representative said that in order to maintain trust in the Montreal Protocol, it was necessary to
ensure second or third conversions. Another said that how to address second and third conversions was an
interesting issue that merited careful consideration.
65.
Issues raised by individual representatives included the need to deal with the sound management of
stocks of ozone-depleting substances and HFCs; to address the destruction of ozone-depleting substances
and HFCs; to consider the special situation of low-volume-consuming and very-low-volume-consuming
countries, especially with regard to funding, including for institutional-strengthening; and for parties to
direct the Executive Committee to consider specific issues and to present decisions according to the wishes
of the Meeting of the Parties. One representative stressed the importance of addressing the servicing
sector, in particular for on-site built equipment, which was not well addressed under the rules of the
Multilateral Fund and the Executive Committee. He also requested that the list of issues to be considered
in relation to the management of HFCs should not exclude alternative and innovative approaches to
address those issues.
IV.
Way forward
66.
Some representatives suggested that the co-conveners were in a good position to consider how best
to report back to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-sixth meeting on the intersessional informal
meeting on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs. They requested that the co-conveners put together
a summary of the key issues raised during the consultation.
67.
The text proposal of the co-conveners was considered on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis,
discussed at length by representatives and extensively redrafted. Parts of the text remained in square
brackets. The text proposal is available from the Ozone Secretariat’s meeting portal for the intersessional
informal meeting at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/workshops/hfcs-intersessional-informalconsultation/SitePages/Home.aspx.
68.
Representatives agreed to endeavour to reconvene the intersessional informal consultation prior to
the opening of the thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in Paris in July 2015 in order to
consider the progress made or developments in the intervening period.
V.
Closure of the meeting
69.
The meeting was declared closed at 9.40 p.m. on Saturday, 13 June 2015.