Co-Chairs’ Summary of

Suggestions for Elaboration in the Supplementary RTF Report

TEAP to update all funding requirements as presented in its May 2011 report taking into account:

(a) All ExCom decisions and approvals up to the 64th Meeting;

(b) Most recent HCFC consumption and production data reported to UNEP under Article 7 by 1 September 2011, which would have impact on baselines.

TEAP to present scenarios considering:

(a)IS in combination with certain inflation rates over the next three triennia;

(b)Sector distribution with higher servicing sector ratio (via package of 75-5-20%) and different manufacturing sectors ratios (70-20-10%).

(c)Including for all scenarios the reduction amounts in metric tonnes,in ODP tonnes and reductions in CO2-eq.;

(d)Funding and no funding for swing plants;

(e)Allocatingsome funding tranches for the HCFC production sector phase-out to replenishments after 2014;

(f)Zero and -3% growth rates for relevant “supporting activities”;

(g)Changes in cost effectiveness figures and their consequent impact on the next three replenishments, taking into account:

  1. Possible economies-of-scale in large consuming countries;
  2. Possible improvements in cost effectiveness over time;
  3. Possible improved cost effectiveness for those HPMPs that go beyond 10% reductions;
  4. An update based on weighted average cost effectiveness for each sector and for groups of countries, based on all HPMPs, HCFC demonstration projectsand individual investment projects approved by the 64th ExCom meeting, taking into account special circumstances and experiences by certain A5 Parties;
  5. Higher penetration rates of low-GWP alternatives;
  6. Higher and lower cost effectiveness figures for the HCFC production sector compared to the CFC production sector phase-out.

(h)The 25% additional funding for low-GWP alternatives only in the sectors: XPS foam, PU foam and commercial refrigeration that have established CE (IOC and ICC) thresholds as per ExCom decision 60/44;

(i)Zero, 25% and 50% penetration rates of low-GWP alternatives in the R/AC sector with 10% and 20% R/AC manufacturing ratios for the periods 2012-2014 and 2015-2017.

Furthermore, TEAP to:

(a)To the extent possible, present alternative production phase-out scenarios, taking into account the possible redirectionof dispersive HCFC production to feedstock production;

(b)To the extent possible, present a range of approaches for swing plants and their funding implications;

(c)For each consumption scenario, estimate the replenishment for each production scenario;

(d)Provide a list of the alternatives that had been included under low-GWP calculations and provide an overview on how the ICC and IOC in table 5-7 were calculated for low-GWP alternatives, explaining the reasons for the large range of costs;

(e)Provide information on alternative growth rates for HCFCs between 2009 and 2013 taking into account available Article 7 data up to September 1, 2011.