United NationsDistr.
EnvironmentGENERAL
ProgrammeUNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1(2)/4
4 September 1989
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
OPENENDED WORKING GROUP OF
THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
Second session of the first meeting
Nairobi, 28 August 5 September 1989
FINAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
1.The second session of the first meeting of the Open Ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol was held at UNEP headquarters in Nairobi from 28 August to 5 September 1989 to review the reports of the four assessment panels and integrate them into one synthesis report, and based on this report, to prepare proposals for any adjustments or amendments to the Montreal Protocol that would be needed, in accordance with decisions 3 and 5 of the First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol held in Helsinki from 2 to 5 May 1989.
II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS
A.Opening of the Meeting
2.The meeting was opened by the Executive Director of UNEP. In his opening statement, Dr. Tolba congratulated the members of the panels and their Chairmen for their skill and diligence in finalizing the four reports in a timely manner, and he stated that the most important conclusion which had resulted from those reports was that the Protocol must be strengthened in order to protect our planet's ozone layer. After reminding delegates of the commitments contained in the Helsinki and Hague declarations, and the communiqu6 from the recent Paris Summit of Western leaders, Dr. Tolba presented some of the key findings of the panel reports as they related to the impacts of ozone depletion and the technical feasibility of taking the action necessary to ensure ozone layer protection. Based on this important information, he made the following specific recommendations for adjustments and amendments to the Montreal Protocol for consideration by the participants:
Na.892428 1742E
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.I(2)/4
Page 2
First, Article 2: (Control Measures) should be adjusted as follows:
(1) Production of currently controlled chlorofluorocarbons should be phased out by the end of this century. Also, by the end of this century consumption should be reduced by 95 per cent. A complete phaseout of consumption should be achieved by the year 2005.
(2) Production and consumption of any other CFCs with an ozone depleting potential greater than 0.1 should be controlled by the Protocol over a specific time schedule.
(3) Production and consumption of the controlled halons should be reduced by 50 per cent by 1995 and a target date set for their complete phaseout.
(4) Methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride should be included in the Annex of controlled substances with a schedule for their phasingout.
SecondSubparagraph C of Article 3 (Calculation of Control Levels) and paragraph 2 of Article 4 Control of Trade with NonParties) should be amended to limit the period permitting export of controlled substances to nonparties to 1 January 1991 instead of 1 January 1993 as an incentive for nonparties to accede to the Protocol.
ThirdParagraph 4 of Article 4 (Control of Trade with Nonparties) should be amended to introduce a prohibition of trade with nonparties in products made with or containing the controlled substances. A list of these products, as called for in Article 4 paragraph 3, should be approved by the Parties in 1991. Article 1 (Definitions) would have to be amended accordingly.
FourthArticle 7 (Reporting of Data) should be amended to require annual submission by the Contracting Parties of data on production, import and export of: .
(a) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs);
(b) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
3.In discussing his recommendations, the Executive Director stressed that the provisions in his recommendations could be achieved. Further, he maintained the importance of placing careful limits on the substitutes for controlled substances to ensure that they would not contribute significantly to the further depletion of the ozone layer, or to the global warming problem.
4.In closing, the Executive Director emphasized the importance of ensuring technology transfer to developing countries, and stated that it was imperative that no economic penalties befall these countries setting out to follow the present and strengthened Protocol, as their contribution to the problem had been negligible.
5.The meeting was attended by delegations from the following 29 Contracting
Parties: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Canada, Denmark, European
Community, Ghana, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Egypt, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Maldives, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Venezuela.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1(2)/4
Page 3
6.In addition, the following 18 noncontracting countries were present: Argentina, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Gambia, India, Iraq, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Liberia, Malawi, Morocco, Philippines, Poland, Sudan and Yugoslavia.
7.Eleven organizations participated. These were: the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Palestine, Greenpeace International, the European Council of Chen,Lcal Manufacturers Federations Industry (CEFIC), Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA), European Chlorinated Solvents Associations (ECSA/CEFIC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Shri Ram Fibres Ltd., Friends of the Earth International
(FOE).
B.Election of Officers
8.The Executive Director of UNEP proposed that in electing officers for this session of the meeting, the participants should bear in mind that there were two other sessions of this openended working group. The first session, which had taken place in Nairobi from 2125 August to develop modalities for financial and other mechanisms, had had a bureau comprising a Chairman from Finland; two ViceChairmen from Japan and Ghana; and Rapporteur from the European Economic Community (EEC). Given that state of officers, he proposed the following bureau for this session and the next, which was to take place in Geneva from 1822 September:
28 August5 September1822 September
ChairmanCanadaMexico
ViceChairmanUSANorway
ViceChairmanUSSI.Netherlands
RapporteurKenyaSwitzerland
9.The meeting agreed on the following officers:
Chairman:Mr. Victor Buxton, Canada;
ViceChairman:Ms. Eileen Claussen, USA;
ViceChairmanMr. Sergei Stepanov. USSR;
Rapporteur:Ms. K.N. Kinyanjui, Kenya.
III.SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS
10.Ambassador Ilkka Ristimaki, Permanent Representative of Finland to UNEP and Chairman of the first session of the Working Group, which had discussed the development of modalities for financial and other mechanisms to enable developing countries to meet the requirements of the Montreal Protocol, reported on the outcome of the 2125 August meeting. (The report on this session is contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.i(l)/3).
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.I(2)/4
Page 4
11.Each of the Chairmen of the four assessment panels presented a review of the key findings of their respective panel reports. This was followed by a question and answer period. Dr. R. Watson introduced the Draft Synthesis Report and also discussed the impact that various reduction and substitution scenarios (control options) would have on the chlorine loading of the atmosphere and the state of the ozone layer.
12.Following the questioning of the Panel Chairmen, the Chairman of the meeting proposed a work schedule for the comprehensive consideration and adoption of the Synthesis Report Ad Referendum.
13.Several delegations stressed the importance of the Synthesis Report and one delegation indicated that the Synthesis Report, as a background document for this Working Group, was an easy reference for the Parties to facilitate their review of the adequacy of the control measures. Given its importance, as well as the limited time available to consider the various subsidiary reports in depth, some indicated that they might not be able to adopt the Synthesis Report formally at this session. Some delegations also expressed concern regarding their ability to determine the extent to which the Synthesis Report reflected the individual panel reports in the short time available for review. Some delegations expressed concern about whether the report had adequately reflected the problems faced by developing countries.
14.Some delegations indicated that they were unable to evaluate the Synthesis Report, since they had not had the opportunity to study the original assessment panel reports. Moreover, they pointed out that while these reports had been drawn up, very few experts from developing countries had been able to participate in this work. They therefore requested that sufficient flexibility be allowed so that they could put forward views that would cast light on key elements in the assessment reports, in particular that of the Economic Panel, in which only two experts from developing countries had participated. These delegations reserved the right to make further observations and comments on the Synthesis Report at the next session of the Working Group.
15.Some delegations expressed a reservation in regard to the Economic Report on the grounds of its insufficient clarity and objectivity. In the view of these delegations, the fundamental point was that the production of CFC substitutes, although technically feasible, was not feasible in purely economic terms. Since the cost of the substitutes was very much higher than those of CFCs, their production would be economically possible only to the extent that the Parties undertook to discourage or prohibit the production of CFCs, the costs and prices of which were very much more competitive. Protection of the ozone layer by the mandatory replacement of CFCs by more expensive substitutes would accordingly involve an additional cost that would bear very much more heavily on the developing countries, which had been in no way responsible for the utilization of CFCs. This economic burden would impose an even heavier burden on the developing countries if the replacement of CFCs by substitute products was speeded up.
16.These delegations that expressed this reservation in regard to the Economic Report had pointed out that the conclusions contained in the second, penultimate and ultimate paragraphs of Section 5.0 of the Synthesis Report did not fully reflect some of the points that these delegations regarded as
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.I(2)/4
Page 6
tetrachloride.Some delegations expressed the same concerns about methyl chloroform. Some delegations stressed that the results of calculations for each proposed option to be submitted to the meeting of the Contracting Parties in June 1990 should be included in the final version of the Synthesis Report.
22.The Working Group then began consideration of the Executive Director's opening statement, starting with his recommendation to adjust Article 2 to phase out the production and consumption of currently controlled CFCs. All delegations were requested to submit any proposals for amendments in writing to the Legal Drafting Group, whose report would reflect all proposals received. The following paragraphs present an overview of the discussion which ensued.
23.Regarding the Executive Director's first recommendation, some delegations supported it as it had been presented or with only slight modifications. However, several proposed phasing out the use of currently controlled CFCs more rapidly. Some delegations pointed out in this connection that this accelerated tempo of reduction should not apply to developing countries. Many of these delegations noted that their countries supported the Helsinki Declaration and therefore supported the phaseout schedule contained in that document, which required a phaseout not later than the year 2000. Additionally, several delegations expressed the view that it was not necessary to have different phaseout periods for consumption and production of CFCs, as the Executive Director had proposed.
24.Several delegations recommended a progressive or stepbystep reduction in CFCs rather than the single reduction target that the Executive Director had recommended. On this point, several other delegations explained that while they could phase out CFCs by a specific date, adhering to a phasedown schedule with specific intermediate steps would cause economic disruption or would be difficult in the more centrally planned economies, or where significant reductions prior to 1986 had already taken place. One delegation however, suggested that a unilateral stepdown schedule was fully consistent with the spirit of the Montreal Protocol, which allowed Parties to take more stringent regulatory action than that specifically required by the Protocol.
25.One delegation declared its readiness to participate in adjusting or amending the Montreal Protocol. However, it expressed the view that an expansion of the list of controlled substances and the acceleration of the controls could be accomplished only if there were equal access by all countries to economically feasible scientific and technological solutions, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the health and environmental impacts of substitutes and an unrestricted exchange of these testing results.
26.The Working Group then proceeded to consider the Executive Director's second recommendation, by which all other CFCs with an ODP greater than 0.1 would be controlled over a specific time schedule to be determined by the Parties. The Chairman explained that Dr. Tolba's intent in recommending this change was to close any loopholes that might exist by virtue of the fact that many other harmful CFCs had, or could be developed, and that such substances would fall outside the jurisdiction of the present Protocol.
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1(2)/4
Page 5
fundamental to an objective economic analysis, so that they felt bound to express a reservation in regard to those conclusions also. In regard to the second paragraph, these delegations had pointed out that it was not equitable to speak of a joint responsibility in economic terms; the conclusions should therefore be that the developed countries (which had caused and were mainly responsible for the problem) and the developing countries should cooperate in the protection of the ozone layer. In regard to the penultimate paragraph, these delegations had indicated that the conclusions should further state that, since the production of the substitutes was not feasible in strictly economic terms, the commercial production of such substitutes would necessitate the discouragement or prohibition of the production of CFCs, the costs and prices of which were much more competitive. In regard to the final paragraph, these delegations had stated that the conclusions should refer in the first place to the high costs of substitution, which bore more heavily on developing countries, to which any costs deriving from rapid reductions had to be added, which would impose an even heavier burden on the developing countries.
17.In response to these concerns, the Chairman requested that after detailed
discussion, the Parties accept that they had had a "preliminary reading" of the report and agree to adopt it Ad Referendum; such adoption would include the understanding that the Parties would have a further opportunity to comment and modify the report if necessary at subsequent meetings. The Chairman then asked Dr. Watson to proceed with an overview of the Synthesis Report in order to facilitate the preliminary comprehensive consideration of the Report on a pointbypoint basis.
18.The Working Group proceeded to consider the Synthesis Report pointbypoint. Several delegations suggested deletions, clarifications and other amendments to the report which were then considered by the drafting group.
19.Some delegations suggested that the Synthesis Report should include a discussion of the impact of CFCs on the global warming problem, and possible impacts on sea level rise. Concern was voiced as to the appropriateness of including information extraneous to the individual panel reports in the Synthesis Report. It was decided that an oblique reference could be made in the Synthesis Report to the contribution of CFCs to global warming, since
references to global warming potentials had been included in the various reports. It was also noted that the entire issue of global warming was the subject of a major project review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and was therefore more appropriately dealt with in that forum.
20.The Chairman requested the formation of a small drafting group chaired by a delegate of Norway to draft and integrate proposals for amendments of the report. He noted that any such amendments of the Synthesis Report had to stem from the Panel Reports. However, it was agreed that additional technical information that was not contained in the individual panel reports would be included in the meeting report rather than in the Synthesis Report.
21. The Drafting Committee prepared a second draft of the Synthesis Report. The Working Group, after further discussion and further amendment, adopted this second draft Ad Referendum as Annex I to this report. Some delegations expressed concern regarding the insufficiency of information available in the panel report at this time about the feasibility of reductions of carbon
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.I(2)/4
Page 7
27.Several delegations suggested that rather than use an ODP number, the
Parties agree simply to control all fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons. They considered that this was legally appropriate and would prevent the development of new, potentially harmful CFCs. Several delegations proposed that this be done according to the same time schedule as that proposed for chemicals listed in Group I of Annex A.