Report of the 5th Meeting
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

Distr.
GENERAL

UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/12
19 November 1993

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

FIFTH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER

Bangkok, 17-19 November 1993

REPORT OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER

INTRODUCTION

1. The Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was held at the United Nations Conference Centre, Bangkok, from 17 to 19 November 1993, at the invitation of the Royal Thai Government.

I. OPENING OF THE MEETING

2. The Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was opened at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 17 November 1993, by His Excellency Mr. Banyat Bantadtan, Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand.

A. Statement by the representative of the Government of Thailand

3. The representative of the Government of Thailand, His Excellency Mr. Banyat Bantadtan, Deputy Prime Minister, welcomed the participants on behalf of the Government and people of Thailand and stated that they were very proud that Thailand had been entrusted to be the venue of such important environmental conferences. He said that the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer was a major threat to the well-being of mankind and although the number of Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol had increased dramatically, a recent report showed that the state of the ozone layer was at its worst ever. Therefore, universal implementation of the Protocol was essential. Thailand had a clear policy to support the world community in its effort to eliminate the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances and the Government had developed and approved a comprehensive phase-out programme. Referring to the Multilateral Fund, he said that its replenishment was crucial and that the amount of the Fund for the next three years would directly affect the pace of the phase-out programmes in most developing countries.

B. Statement by Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme

4. Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, thanked the Government of Thailand for hosting the Meeting. The Executive Director cautioned against complacency: in 1992 and 1993, the Antarctic ozone hole was at its largest ever, and significant ozone depletion above northern latitudes continued to worsen. Another disturbing factor was that consumption in countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol had shown an overall increase of 54 per cent, an increase that called for bold decisions on additional assistance to the developing countries. She urged all States that had not yet done so to ratify the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments. Reminding the Meeting of the reporting requirements under Article 7 of the Protocol, she said that delays in data reporting by Parties inhibited an accurate and timely monitoring and decision-making process. Addressing the requirement of the Multilateral Fund for the 1994-1996 and outstanding contributions due for 1991-1993, the Executive Director urged the Parties to contribute the maximum possible resources and honour their outstanding commitments. She expressed the hope that the Meeting would accept the recommendation that no exemptions to the phase-out of halons were necessary. Decisions must also be made regarding the modalities of the financial mechanism and the reviews scheduled for 1995. In conclusion, she expressed pleasure that Nairobi had been recommended as the site of the next meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

C. Statement by the President of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties

5. Mr. Kamal Nath, President of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties, welcomed the participants and expressed his confidence that the Meeting would be successful. He stated that it was an honour for India and a privilege for him personally to have served as President of the Bureau and he paid tribute to the cooperation he had received. He said that the successful implementation of the Montreal Protocol to date was a matter for satisfaction, but not for complacency, as the Protocol had not yet been ratified by some countries, and the Copenhagen Amendment was yet to be ratified by the required number of Parties to bring it into effect. Furthermore, the adequate and timely replenishment of the Multilateral Fund was important to the implementation process, and he urged all countries to pay their contributions. Referring to the phasing out of the ozone-depleting substances, he said that creative and flexible use of the Multilateral Fund would be required to achieve the ultimate aim of eliminating their use entirely, in a realistic and cost-effective manner. Provisions of the Protocol needed to be revisited so that early reduction of ozone-depleting substances by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol before 1997 did not affect their industrial strategy. Exports of ozone-depleting substances from those Parties should be given preference so that the incremental cost would be reduced and economic dislocation minimized. Contrary to some voices of dissent heard until very recently, the veracity of ozone depletion was supported by overwhelming technical and scientific assessment. In addition, fears that the Multilateral Fund would be cumbersome and unworkable had proved to be unfounded, and, in fact, the joint control by developed and developing countries had acted as a confidence-building measure and was a model for emulation in other environmental areas.

II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

A. Attendance

6. The following Parties to the Montreal Protocol were represented: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, European Community, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Seychelles, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Western Samoa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

7. The following States not party to the Protocol were also represented: Colombia, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iraq, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Morocco, Myanmar and Viet Nam.

8. Observers from the following United Nations Secretariat units, bodies and specialized agencies were also present: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and World Bank.

9. The following other organizations were also represented: Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, Asian Institute of Technology, American Standard Inc., European Council of Federations of the Chemical Industry (CEFIC), Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Hankook Shinwha Co. Ltd., Hitachi Ltd., International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC), Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), Japan Association of Methyl Bromine Industry, Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association (JEMA), Japan Flon Gas Association (JFGA), Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer Protection (JICOP), Methyl Bromide Global Coalition (MBGC), New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).

B. Election of the President, three Vice-Presidents and the Rapporteur

10. In accordance with rule 21, paragraph 1, of the rules of procedure, the following officers were elected, by acclamation, at the opening of the Meeting:

President:
Mr. Christo Dalchev, Deputy Minister of the Environment, Bulgaria (Eastern European Group)

Vice-Presidents:
Mr. Hans A. Alders, Minister of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, Netherlands (Western European and Others Group)
Mr. Alvaro Brenes Vargas, Costa Rica (Latin American and Caribbean Group)
Mr. Bashir A. Khodabux, Minister of Environment and Quality of Life, Mauritius (African Group)

Rapporteur:
Mr. Jose Ampeso, Philippines (Asian and Pacific Group)

11. Since the President was unable to preside over the meeting, Mr. H.A. Alders, Vice-President of the Meeting, performed his duties.

C. Adoption of the agenda

12. The following agenda, as contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/1, was adopted:

  1. Opening of the Meeting:

  2. Organizational matters:

  3. Consideration of the report of the Executive Director of UNEP:

  4. Report of the Secretariat on information provided by the Parties in accordance with Articles 4, 7 and 9 of the Montreal Protocol and the report of the Implementation Committee.

  5. Consideration of the report of the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol.

  6. Financial report for 1992 and proposed 1994 and 1995 budgets for the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund.

  7. Date and venue of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties.

  8. Other matters.

  9. Adoption of the report.

  10. Closure of the Meeting.

D. Credentials

13. The Bureau of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties approved the credentials of the representatives of 54 Parties to the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol. The Bureau also approved provisionally the representation of 24 Parties on the understanding that they would send the credentials to the Secretariat in due course.

III. SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS

A. Presentation of reports

14. Mr. Aucamp, Co-Chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel, said that three tasks had been assigned to the Panel by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, namely, bringing to the notice of the Meeting of the Parties any significant developments in the area of its competence; studying and reporting on the impact on the ozone layer of continued use of recycled controlled substances and of the utilization or non-utilization of available environmentally sound alternatives or substitutes; and updating the 1991 report with special emphasis on (a) methyl bromide and (b) the impact on ozone of subsonic and supersonic aircraft. The Panel had decided at its meeting in June 1993 to change the format of its report to consist of five parts totalling 13 chapters with a lead author for each. He then enumerated the parts and chapters in question, giving the names and countries of the lead authors and the timetable adopted. The report would be peer-reviewed by about 150 scientists from all parts of the world, proposed by the Parties and selected by the Panel, before its formal submission to the Meeting of the Parties. The process had proved to be a successful one and the Panel would be able to present to the Parties the best available scientific analysis of the situation. He then gave a brief summary of the scientific findings to date, mentioning that, although no actual hole in the ozone layer had occurred in the northern hemisphere, the average ozone levels in the mid-latitudes, measured in the spring of 1993 at about 14 per cent below normal, were the lowest ever recorded; the hole over the Antarctic, which had started to form in mid-August and was still not completely closed, corresponded to a more than 60 per cent destruction of the total ozone - the lowest levels ever recorded; and that the trend was for the situation to continue to deteriorate. CFC concentrations in the atmosphere were still increasing but the increase had slowed in the last three years, as a result of the remedial measures adopted by the Parties.

15. Mr. Kuijpers, Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, giving an account of the progress made in phasing out ozone-depleting substances since the Panel's report to the Open-ended Working Group earlier in 1993, said that, although there could be no doubt that accelerated phase-out was necessary, much progress had in fact been made. Most developed countries had achieved reduction rates larger that 50 per cent, while some had achieved as much as 80 per cent. Some developing countries not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol had equalled or exceeded those rates. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other replacement substances were freely available and at much lower prices than previously estimated. Although significant progress had been made in the developing countries also, a number of matters of concern remained, particularly in the refrigeration sector in the developed countries, where conversion to Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs) was not taking place at a rapid pace, thus leading to prolonged CFC emissions. Moreover, the phase-out process in the developed countries must not result in the dumping of outmoded equipment in the developing countries and competitive solutions to the problem of replacement substances were needed.

16. Mr. Andersen, Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, said that the Panel endorsed the unanimous recommendation of the Halon Technical Options Committee that it was technically and economically feasible to eliminate the use of halon in some applications for which exemption had been requested, while adequate halon supplies were available from stockpiled and recycled sources for those applications where alternatives and substitutes were not yet developed and/or approved. Consequently, it had not been able to recommend any approval for essential use in 1994, a fact that was reflected in a draft decision before the Parties. Work must continue, however, on the organization and management of national and international halon banking as a high priority for 1994.

17. As for the technical and economic feasibility of identifying products made with but not containing controlled substances, technical feasibility did not exist in the case of the vast majority of the products concerned. In the case of the remaining products, the economic and administrative feasibility was dubious, since the identification process would be extremely complicated and expensive. In the circumstances and in the light of the phase-out deadlines, the Panel reported that any additional export restrictions would not further encourage non-Parties to become Parties to the Protocol.

B. Statements

18. Statements were made by representatives of 34 States, including 2 non-Parties.

19. Nearly all representatives who spoke expressed the view that the Montreal Protocol was an excellent example of international cooperation in addressing a very serious environmental problem. Several representatives said there was no room for complacency, one of them expressing dismay at the fact that, for the first time, the cooperation that had characterized the creation and operation of the Protocol, particularly between developed and developing countries, had begun to fray. Other representatives commented that the maintenance of the spirit and the ultimate success of the Montreal Protocol would largely depend on the fulfillment of commitments regarding contributions to the Multilateral Fund and the transfer of technology. Several other representatives commented that the transfer of technology should be accelerated and take place on affordable terms.

20. Many representatives reported the progress made in their countries towards ratification of the London and Copenhagen Amendments. Some representatives called on other Parties to ratify those Amendments and on non-Parties to ratify the Protocol and Amendments. One representative said that it was a matter of considerable concern to his Government that only slow progress had been made toward the entry into force of the Copenhagen Amendment. One representative of a non-Party that had completed the necessary internal procedures but had not yet deposited its instruments of ratification of the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment suggested that the Secretariat might prepare a list of country programmes, together with their contents in the form of a safe bank, as they might be of use to new Parties and others. The representative of another non-Party said that his Government had decided to become party to the Protocol.

21. Nearly all representatives gave accounts of the work already carried out in their countries under the Protocol, the country plans adopted and their future work programmes. Many also reported that their phase-out programmes for controlled substances were or would be ahead of those required by the Protocol and/or that stricter controls were being imposed. Several representatives of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol stated that they hoped to meet or exceed the Protocol requirements but that that was contingent upon sufficient financial support and technology transfer. One representative said that the practical difficulties encountered in recovering and recycling ozone-depleting substances presented logistical problems peculiar to most of the countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. Some representatives said that they were concerned about the supply to and the pricing of controlled substances for Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in the light of the scheduled phase-out of those substances by Parties not operating under that paragraph.

22. A number of representatives praised the Multilateral Fund as a unique example of international cooperation, several of them expressing their satisfaction with the management of the Fund by the Executive Committee and the Fund Secretariat. Many representatives speaking on the issue expressed support for an increase in the size of the Fund for the three-year period 1994-1996 in order to ensure that developing countries met the requirements of the Protocol. A number of them specifically supported the figure of US$ 510 million endorsed by the Preparatory Meeting. Several others of them stated that, in view of the international economic situation, the fact that the size of the Fund had been increased at all was a notable achievement. One representative, however, stated that the increase might not be high enough in view of the larger number of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the greater number of controlled substances. The representative of one Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 stated that some Parties not operating under that Article were not in compliance with the Protocol in that they were in arrears in their contributions to the Fund. Several representatives urged all Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to ensure that their contributions were paid regularly and on schedule. One representative said that the Parties should be alert to any future unilateral interpretation concerning the method of contribution; any mode of payment other than cash should be approved by the Parties before it could be accepted. One representative questioned the adjustment of the official United Nations assessment rate used to calculate contributions to the Multilateral Fund, which increased the burden on small contributing Parties. He suggested that consideration might be given to the idea of establishing a special category of Party to address the situation of developed countries with problems similar to those of developing countries. Countries in that category should be entitled to receive assistance from the Fund for projects such as the promising one relating to methyl bromide being carried out in his own country.

23. A number of representatives said that, because of the difficulties associated with the transition their economies were undergoing, they were unable to pay all their contributions to the Multilateral Fund. Two of them called on the Secretariat and the Parties to look more closely into the matter and two others stated that their Governments would seek to make contributions in kind. One stated that his Government would have to seek assistance from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in order to meet the phase-out schedule required by the Protocol. Another representative said he hoped that the prospect of assistance from the GEF would encourage such countries whose contributions to the Multilateral Fund were outstanding to settle their arrears.

24. One representative expressed concern at the time-lag between the approval of projects by the Executive Committee and the actual disbursement of the funds, which, if not remedied, could have an adverse effect on future work under the Protocol. Another representative expressed regret at the low level of funding allocated to small Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and said that the Multilateral Fund should ensure in the interests of fairness that those Parties were invariably approached and offered assistance.

25. Several representatives endorsed the proposal to finance a limited number of methyl bromide alternative demonstration projects from the Multilateral Fund. One representative said that substances like methyl bromide, which were not yet fully covered by control measures, constituted the next challenge under the Protocol, but several others urged that no hasty decision should be taken until the final results of the study on the subject were available, adding that it would seem appropriate for country programmes to include the study of methyl bromide. One of those representatives said that the timetable for the submission of the scientific assessment of methyl bromide should be accelerated. One representative said that international efforts should concentrate on the minimization of emissions of methyl bromide to the atmosphere and not solely on a total ban. Some representatives informed the Meeting of their national efforts to phase out the consumption of methyl bromide even before the end of the century. Another representative said that, while his country would comply with the production freeze in 1995, he was concerned about the implications for developing countries.

26. Several representatives supported the findings of the Halons Technical Options Committee, as endorsed by the Technological and Assessment Panel, and the resulting recommendation by the Working Group that no production of halons was necessary in 1994 to satisfy essential uses in developed countries. One of those representatives expressed the hope that it would not be necessary to approve many exemptions. One representative announced that his country had withdrawn its essential use nomination for 1994.

27. One representative requested an extension of the exemption from the trade ban because his country was in compliance with the Montreal Protocol but had not yet completed the ratification process for the London Amendment.

28. One representative expressed concern regarding the emission of nitric oxides directly into the upper troposphere and lower and middle stratosphere from high-flying aircraft, particularly in light of the massive increase in such aviation predicted for the next two decades.

29. Some representatives expressed concern at the fact that HCFCs were being recommended as temporary replacements for CFCs, since some of those partly halogenated hydrocarbons, as well as the HFCs and the perfluorocarbons were, like CFCs, long-lived substances with a high global-warming potential. One of them stated that alternatives should not be selected on a cost-effectiveness basis only and that their environmental and health implications should also be taken into account. Other representatives emphasized that the use of HCFCs as transitional substances had been approved by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties. One of those representatives stated that those casting doubts on the role of those substances were ignoring the findings of the expert panels regarding the need to use them, pending the availability of proven and reasonably priced alternatives. Another representative cautioned against hasty decisions on the matter and the need to face economic realities. Many representatives informed the Meeting concerning their national efforts to phase out the use of HCFCs well before the time-schedule of the Protocol, some of them even as early as the year 2002.

30. One representative said that there should be product liability assurance that new substitutes and alternatives were environmentally safe and sound, together with future compensation if they turned out to be environmentally unsafe. He urged the Parties to look into a legal regime for certification, product safety and liability for the alternatives before they could be marketed.

31. One representative said that it was his understanding that developing countries reclassified as operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol should have the same rights and obligations as the countries originally so classified. He hoped that an amicable solution to the problem could be found at the next Meeting. Another representative, whose country was looking forward to reclassification as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, stated that his country would not seek to use the grace period but would seek resources from the Multilateral Fund in order to ensure the phase-out of controlled substances as soon as possible.

32. One representative said that the measures taken in his country had caused a rise in the price of controlled substances in the domestic market. Another representative said that early retirement of equipment requiring ozone-depleting substances for service and maintenance could result in economic catastrophe for the developing countries. Therefore, retrofit technology must be introduced promptly. Another representative stressed that local consumers should not be penalized during the replacement of the relevant consumer durables.

33. One representative noted with pleasure the willingness of the industrial sector to assist in activities aimed at the implementation of the Protocol. Another representative said that his country believed that international business had a crucial role to play in the identification of benign substances, processes and technologies and that, although remarkable progress had been made, the challenge remained to maintain, and if possible accelerate, the pace of development. One representative proposed associating the industrial sector directly with the commitments and decisions reached by the Parties, by means of annual or biennial meetings with international companies, for the exchange of information and ideas; that would provide a new instrument for international cooperation. His country also sought to involve the major players in business, technology and the environment, such as industrial enterprises and nongovernmental organizations, in mechanisms such as joint ventures.

34. The representative of Austria announced his Government's willingness to host the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, in 1995, to mark the tenth anniversary of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

C. Action by the Meeting

35. Under agenda items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the Meeting had before it the report of the Executive Director to the Fifth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/2), the financial reports on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol for the first year of the biennium 19921993 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/3), the approved 1993 and 1994 and proposed 1995 budgets for the Ozone Secretariat (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/4), the report of the Secretariat on the information provided by the Parties pursuant to Article 7 and in accordance with Article 12 (c) of the Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/5 and Corr.1 and Add.1), the report of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/6), a note by the Secretariat on formats for reporting data under the amended Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/7 and Corr. 1 and 2), a note by the Secretariat on the transfer of production rights under Article 2, paragraph 5 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/8), a note by the Secretariat on the possible effect of the Basel Convention on the export of used ozone-depleting substances, including halons intended for recycling (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/9), a note by the Secretariat regarding issues relating to the reclassification of developing country Parties initially classified as not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/10 and Add.1), a note by the Secretariat on the rules of procedure concerning the credentials of representatives (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/11), the report of the Implementation Committee (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/6/3) and the report of the first meeting of the Bureau of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.4/Bur1/3). It also had before it the draft decisions submitted to it by the Preparatory Meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/Prep/2, annex), prepared on the basis of the draft decisions circulated by the Secretariat prior to the meetings (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/L.1 and Add.1).

36. The Fifth Meeting adopted a number of decisions on the basis of the draft decisions submitted by the Preparatory Meeting, as well as the approved 1993, revised 1994 and proposed 1995 budgets for the Ozone Secretariat, the scale of 1994 and 1995 contributions to the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund and the scale of 1994, 1995 and 1996 contributions to the Multilateral Fund circulated in the course of the Meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/L.2), an additional draft circulated as a result of the discussion in the Preparatory Meeting (see UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/Prep/2, para. 26) and an oral proposal made by a representative at the final meeting of the session. All the draft decisions were adopted by consensus, with the comments and amendments reflected in paragraphs 38 to 61 below.

IV. DECISIONS

37. The Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer decided:

Decision V/1. Amendments adopted by the Second Meeting of the Parties (London Amendment) and by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties (Copenhagen Amendment)
  1. To note with satisfaction the large number of countries that have ratified the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol and to urge all States that have not yet done so to become Parties to both instruments;

  2. To urge all Parties to the Montreal Protocol that have not yet done so to ratify the London and Copenhagen Amendments to the Protocol;

Decision V/2. Implementation Committee

- To confirm the positions of Argentina, Austria, Bulgaria, the Republic of Korea and Uganda as members of the Implementation Committee for one further year, and to select Burkina Faso, Chile, Jordan, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation as members of the Committee for a two-year period;

Decision V/3. Application of trade measures under Article 4 to non-Parties to the London Amendment
  1. To note the information reported by non-Parties to the Montreal Protocol pursuant to decision IV/17 C (Control of trade with non-Parties) of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and to request the Secretariat to inform those States that the trade restrictions under Article 4 are applicable to all non-Parties as per the provisions of that Article;

  2. To note, however, the request by Malta, Jordan, Poland and Turkey to the Meeting of the Parties to agree an extension for them of decision IV/17 C pending completion of their procedures for ratification of the London Amendment;

  3. To note that these four countries have all submitted data pursuant to decision IV/17 C notifying that in 1992 they were in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to 2E and 4 of the Montreal Protocol and have submitted supporting data to that effect as specified in Article 7 of the Protocol;

  4. To agree to extend, until the Sixth Meeting of the Parties, the exemption of those four countries from the trade controls in Articles 2, 2A to 2E and 4 of the Montreal Protocol provided that by 31 March 1994 they submit to the Secretariat, for consideration by the Implementation Committee, data as specified in Article 7 to demonstrate that during 1993 they were in full compliance with the controls in all those Articles. Such data shall be submitted in accordance with the revised format for reporting of data as adopted by the Parties in decision V/5;

  5. To agree to this exemption on the understanding that any future exemption of this nature would only be granted in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 8 of Article 4;

Decision V/4. Classification of certain developing countries as not operating under Article 5 and reclassification of certain developing countries earlier classified as not operating under Article 5
  1. To note that Cyprus, Kuwait, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates are not classified as Parties operating under Article 5 based on their annual per capita consumption of controlled substances, which is more than 0.3 kilograms. The classification will be appropriately revised in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, on receipt of further data from them, if it warrants reclassification;

  2. To reclassify Malta and Bahrain as Parties operating under Article 5 from the year 1991, based on the data furnished by those Parties showing their annual per capita consumption of controlled substances to be less than 0.3 kilograms;

  3. That the Open-ended Working Group shall analyse the operation of Article 5 with regard to the classification and reclassification of those developing countries to which the Article applies and propose to the Sixth Meeting of the Parties any clarificatory decisions it deems necessary;

Decision V/5. Revised format for reporting of data under Article 7

- To approve the revised format for reporting of data under Article 7 of the Protocol, as set out in Annex I to the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;

Decision V/6. Data and information reporting
  1. To note with satisfaction that all the Parties that reported data have met or exceeded their obligations for control measures under Article 2 of the Protocol;

  2. To urge all Parties that have not yet done so to report their data to the Secretariat as soon as possible;

  3. To encourage all Parties to adhere strictly to the reporting requirement under paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the amended Protocol which provides, inter alia, that data shall be provided not later than nine months after the end of the year to which the data relate;

  4. To take note of the information provided by some Parties on the implementation of Article 4 of the Protocol and to encourage further those Parties that have not yet done so to provide the information to the Secretariat as soon as possible;

Decision V/7. Review of the functioning of the Financial Mechanism since 1 January 1991
  1. To note the report on the operation of the Financial Mechanism since 1 January 1991;

  2. To note with satisfaction that the operation of the Fund has markedly improved since the commencement of its activities and to congratulate the Executive Committee and the Fund Secretariat on its excellent work;

  3. To request the Executive Committee to continue to make its best efforts to ensure, in accordance with national priorities and procedures and in conformity with the terms of reference of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, that:

  4. Also to request the Executive Committee to ensure that its annual reports cover the achievements of the operation of the Fund in accordance with its terms of reference, paying particular attention to priorities set, actions taken and progress made;

Decision V/8. Consideration of alternatives
  1. That each Party is requested, as far as possible and as appropriate, to give consideration in selecting alternatives and substitutes, bearing in mind, inter alia, Article 2F, paragraph 7, of the Copenhagen Amendment regarding hydrochlorofluorocarbons, to:

  2. To note that the Executive Committee is taking the above considerations into account as far as information is available;

  3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical Options Committees in the context of finalizing its report, to provide information on which alternatives and substitutes best satisfied the above considerations, and to update this information on an annual basis;

Decision V/9. Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
  1. To adopt the budget for 1994-1996 of US$ 510,000,000 for the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol with the understanding that US$ 55,000,000 of that sum will be provided by funds unallocated during the 1991-1993 period;

  2. To urge all Parties to pay their outstanding contributions promptly and also to pay their future contributions promptly and in full, in accordance with the formula for contributions as set out in Annex II to the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties;

  3. To adopt the scale of contributions for the Multilateral Fund based on the replenishment of US$ 455,000,000 as set out in Annex II in the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties; US$ 151,666,666 for 1994, US$ 151,666,667 for 1995 and US$ 151,666,667 for 1996;

  4. To endorse the selection of Australia, Denmark, France, Japan, Norway, Poland and the United States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and the selection of Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, India, Malaysia, Venezuela as members representing Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, for one year;

  5. To endorse the selection of Malaysia to act as Chair and of Australia to act as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year;

Decision V/10. Temporary difficulties encountered by Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland and other countries with economies in transition

- To note the recommendations of the Executive Committee with respect to the countries encountering temporary difficulties and to request the Executive Committee to continue to make its best efforts to consider various possibilities for addressing the situation by obtaining contributions in kind wherever possible and to report on this matter to the Sixth Meeting of the Parties;

Decision V/11. Review under paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Protocol
  1. To request the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol to prepare a report in respect of the review referred to in paragraph 8 of Article 5, taking into account section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 and submit it to the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties through the Secretariat by 31 December 1994 and to prepare, and submit through the Secretariat, an addendum to its report no later than three months before the 1995 Meeting of the Parties with a view to its consideration at that Meeting. Such report shall include consideration of:

  2. To request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to consider the report and make recommendations as appropriate to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties;

Decision V/12. Review under section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

- To request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties at its tenth meeting to prepare the terms of reference and modalities for a report to meet the requirements of section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;

Decision V/13. Assessment Panel reports
  1. To note with appreciation the interim reports of the Co-Chairs of the Scientific and the Environmental Effects Assessment Panels and to request them to continue their work in accordance with the decisions of the Fourth and Fifth Meetings of the Parties to the Protocol;

  2. To note with appreciation the reports of the Halons Technical Options Committee and of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel submitted in July 1993;

  3. To note with satisfaction the progress in reducing the consumption of the controlled substances;

Decision V/14. Essential uses of halons
  1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Halons Technical Options Committee pursuant to decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties;

  2. That no level of production or consumption is necessary to satisfy essential uses of halon in Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, for the year 1994 since there are technically and economically feasible alternatives and substitutes for most applications, and since halon is available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked and recycled halon;

Decision V/15. International halon bank management
  1. To note with appreciation the efforts of the Industry and Environment Programme Activity Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme to function as a clearing-house for information relevant to international halon bank management and to request it to continue its work in this field in cooperation with the Halons Technical Options Committee, including holding details of all known halon banking schemes and a list of those "banks" with halon for sale and particularly to emphasize regional halon banking and international coordination of halon banks to supply the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;

  2. To encourage all Parties to submit information relevant to international halon bank management to the Industry and Environment Programme Activity Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme;

Decision V/16. Supply of halons to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol

- To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Halons Technical Options Committee to study and report through the Secretariat by 31 March 1994 at the latest on the problems and options of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol in obtaining halon in light of the phase-out in developed countries and subsequent closing of halon production facilities. This report should particularly analyse whether halon is available to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol in sufficient quantity and quality and at affordable prices from banks of recycled halon;

Decision V/17. Feasibility of banning or restricting from States not party to the Montreal Protocol the import of products produced with, but not containing, controlled substances in Annex A, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Protocol
  1. To note with appreciation the work by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel regarding the feasibility of banning or restricting the import of products produced with, but not containing, controlled substances;

  2. That it is not feasible to impose a ban or restriction on the import of such products under the Protocol at this stage;

  3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review this issue at regular intervals;

Decision V/18. Timetable for the submission and consideration of essential use nominations
  1. To request the Parties to submit their nominations for each production and consumption exemption for substances other than halon for 1996 in accordance with decision IV/25, with the presumption that the Meeting of the Parties will be held on 1 September;

  2. To modify the timetables in decision IV/25 for nominations for halon production and consumption exemptions for 1995 and subsequent years, and for nominations for production and consumption exemptions for substances other than halon for 1997 and subsequent years as follows: to set 1 January of each year as the last date for nominations for decisions taken in that year for any subsequent year;

  3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its relevant Technical Options Committees to develop recommendations on the nominations and submit their report through the Secretariat by 31 March of that year;

  4. To request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to consider the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and make its recommendations to the subsequent meeting of the Parties;

  5. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assemble and distribute a handbook on essential uses nominations including copies of relevant decisions, nomination instructions, summaries of past recommendations, and copies of nominations to illustrate possible formats and levels of technical detail;

Decision V/19. Control measures to be applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol with respect to the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C, Group II of Annex C, and Annex E
  1. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in collaboration with the Secretariat and the Executive Committee to assess the following, in accordance with Article 6 and taking into account the report required by decision V/11 of the Protocol and to submit their combined report, through the Secretariat, by 30 November 1994 at the latest, to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties:

  2. To request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to consider the combined report of the two Assessment Panels and submit its recommendation to the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, in 1995;

Decision V/20. Extension of application of trade measures under Article 4 to controlled substances listed in Group I of Annex C and in Annex E
  1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess the feasibility and implications of extending the application of trade measures under Article 4 of the Protocol to trade in the controlled substances listed in Group I of Annex C and in Annex E and report through the Secretariat by 30 November 1994 at the latest to the Open-ended Working Group;

  2. To request the Open-ended Working Group to make recommendations on the subject, as appropriate, with a view to their consideration by the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, in 1995;

Decision V/21. Budgets and financial matters
  1. To note the financial reports on the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol and the Secretariat for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol for 1992;

  2. To urge all Parties to pay their outstanding contributions promptly and also to pay their future contributions promptly and in full, in accordance with the formula for contributions as set out in Annex III to the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties;

  3. To adopt the proposed budgets for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol of US$ 2,822,735 for 1994 and of US$ 3,416,550 for 1995, as set out in Annex IV to the report of the Fifth Meeting of the Parties;

  4. To urge the Secretariat to furnish the Parties with an estimation of the current year's needs and in the same format the actual expenditures of the previous year so that the Parties will have a good understanding of the Secretariat's budgetary requirements;

Decision V/22. Bureau of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

- To take note of the report of the first meeting of the Bureau of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol;

Decision V/23. Funding of methyl bromide projects by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
  1. To authorize the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol to provide funding for a limited number of methyl bromide projects for data collection, information exchange within the scope of country programmes, in line with paragraphs 1 (b) and (c) of decision IV/23 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties, as well as for a limited number of methyl bromide alternative demonstration projects, which should be selected with the assistance of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel;

  2. To request the implementing agencies to cooperate according to their specific expertise to assist in implementing the present decision;

  3. To encourage Parties to provide bilateral support for other methyl bromide studies and projects in developing countries (over and above contributions to the Fund);

Decision V/24. Trade in controlled substances and the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

- To note the report of the Secretariat on the applicability of the provisions of the Basel Convention to trade in used controlled substances of the Montreal Protocol and to urge the Parties to the Basel Convention to take appropriate decisions, consistent with the objectives of the Basel Convention and of the Montreal Protocol, in order to facilitate early phase-out of the production and consumption of the controlled substances of the Montreal Protocol;

Decision V/25. Provision of information on the supply of controlled substances to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol
  1. To request Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol which require controlled substances from another Party to furnish, with effect from 1 January 1995, to the Government of the supplying Party a letter specifying the volume of the substances required and stating that the substances are required for the purposes of meeting their basic domestic needs;

  2. To request Parties supplying the controlled substances to provide annually to the Secretariat a summary of the requests received from Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and to indicate therein whether such Parties receiving the substances have affirmed that the supply is to meet their basic domestic needs;

Decision V/26: Destruction Technologies

- Further to decision IV/11 on destruction technologies:

Decision V/27. Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

- To convene the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in September/November 1994 in Nairobi;

Decision V/28. Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

- To express its gratitude to the Government of Austria for its generous offer to host the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Vienna in 1995, to mark the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Comments made at the time of adoption of the decisions

Review of the functioning of the Financial Mechanism since 1 January 1991 (decision V/7)

38. After having its attention drawn to an omission in the draft decision on this subject, the Meeting inserted the words "and the Fund Secretariat" after the words "Committee" in paragraph 2.

Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (decision V/9)

39. The representative of the Republic of Korea said that, while his delegation had no objection to the draft decision proper, it was concerned about the annex thereto. It had reservations concerning the scale of contributions and, more specifically, concerning the amounts assessed against his country. He understood that the contributions of developing country Parties were subject to revision in the event of their reclassification as countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, in which connection he referred back to decision V/4. He stated that, as it stood, the scale of contributions pre-empted the question of such reclassification, since it covered a three-year period. He suggested a footnote stating that the contributions of developing countries not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 would be subject to revision in the event of their reclassification. The representative of Kuwait supported the statement made by the representative of the Republic of Korea. The figures appearing in the annex for his country were of a presumptive nature, since Kuwait would be eligible for reclassification under paragraph 1 of Article 5 upon submission of new consumption figures for 1993.

40. The representative of Ukraine stated that the case of countries with economies in transition which were unable to fulfil their commitments could also be covered in such a footnote.

41. The representatives in question were assured that their concerns would be reflected in the report, without any alteration of the decision or its annex. It was also pointed out by the Secretariat that decisions V/4 and V/10 would take care of those concerns, which would be brought before the Sixth Meeting of the Parties. The representative of Ukraine, supported by the representative of the Russian Federation, accepted that assurance on the understanding that the concerns expressed would be addressed at the next Meeting of the Parties.

42. After the adoption of the decision, the representative of Malaysia said that the Asian Group had nominated Malaysia and India to serve as members of the Executive Committee on the understanding that Malaysia would co-opt China in its delegations and India would co-opt Jordan in its delegations. He stated that the Asian Group had also agreed that:

43. The representative of Malaysia also thanked the Parties, especially members of the Executive Committee for their trust and confidence in making him Chair of the Executive Committee. He pledged that he would carry out his tasks dutifully and impartially in an endeavour to ensure the continued effectiveness of the Fund. He appealed to the Parties to bear in mind, when assigning new functions to the Executive Committee, the fact that the Executive Committee's primary task was to ensure speedy and cost-effective implementation of projects and the disbursement of funds. Only thereafter could the Committee address the 54 per cent increase in consumption of controlled substances among Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, as recorded in the 1992-1993 report of the Secretariat (UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/5).

Temporary difficulties encountered by Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, and other countries with economies in transition (decision V/10)

44. On the proposal of the representative of the Russian Federation, the Meeting decided to amend the title of the draft decision ("Temporary difficulties encountered by Hungary, Bulgaria and Poland") to read as above.

Review under section II, paragraph 4, of decision IV/18 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (decision V/12)

45. On the proposal of the representative of Australia, the Meeting decided to amend the draft decision by inserting the words "and modalities" after the words "terms of reference" in the second line.

Essential uses of halons (Decision V/14)

46. The representative of the Russian Federation said that, while his delegation did not object to the wording of the draft decision, it had a reservation to enter concerning it. His country would need to produce 400 tons of halon in 1994 for essential uses. Due to the situation in his country, it had not been possible to submit essential-use nominations and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had thus not taken Russian requirements into account.

47. The Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, having confirmed that the Russian circumstances had not been investigated by its Halon Technical Options Committee, said that the Committee would make every effort to locate sufficient supplies of recycled halon to meet the Russian requirements. In that connection, he informed the Parties that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was extending invitations to military and environmental representatives of a number of countries, including the Russian Federation, to attend a forthcoming conference on the role of the military in protecting the ozone layer. At that conference, technical information would be presented on alternatives and substitutes to military applications, including halon and other ozone-depleting substances.

Supply of halons to Parties operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol (decision V/16)

48. The representative of the Russian Federation proposed the addition in both the title and the text of the draft decision the words "and Parties with economies in transition" wherever the words "Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol" occurred. After an explanation by the Secretariat that the draft decision in question related to the supply of new halons, which was permissible only to countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, he withdrew his amendment. The Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel said that, if the Russian Federation wished the Panel to investigate the difficulties of countries with economies in transition, it was prepared to do so. The representative of the Russian Federation accepted that offer.

Control measures to be applicable to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 with respect to controlled substances in Group I of Annex C, Group II of Annex C and Annex E (decision V/19)

49. On the proposal of the representative of the United States, the Meeting amended the draft decision on this subject to ensure that duplication of work was avoided and that the report required by decision V/11 was taken into account.

Extension of application of trade measures under Article 4 to controlled substances listed in Group I of Annex C and in Annex E (decision V/20)

50. The representative of Ukraine said that the comments he had made in respect of decision V/9 were equally pertinent to the draft decision on this subject.

Budgets and financial matters (decision V/21)

51. The Secretariat informed the Meeting of the amended figures for paragraph 3, prior to the adoption of the draft decision.

52. The representative of Brazil expressed the wish that, according to the discussions that had taken place in the small working group on the budget, the Secretariat would make every effort in order to enhance the participation of experts from Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in the Assessment Panels and the Technical Options Committee.

53. The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the small working group that had discussed the proposed budgets for the Trust Fund, said the group had studied methods of maximizing the number of participants from countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and making optimum use of the limited resources available. In that context, the small working group had concluded that the principles underlying the budget for travel assistance for countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 should be that: not more than one person's travel costs were covered in the case of each country; where back-to-back meetings were being held, the same person should attend each of the meetings and, in any event, only one participant from a country should be provided with travel assistance for the set of meetings; and that the cost of the air fare should correspond to the most advantageous economy-class fare. Those principles were already being applied in the case of other environmental conventions. Several othermembers of the small working group concurred with the presentation by the representative of France. The Secretariat explained the present practice of assisting only one participant from a country in each meeting except that, for the Meetings of the Parties, the Ministers also were supported on request. After some discussion, the Meeting endorsed these principles outlined by the representative of France on behalf of the small working group. In response to a query by the Secretariat, the Meeting agreed that the principles applied to all the Meetings of the Parties and of their Committees and Panels.

Funding of methyl bromide projects by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (decision V/23)

54. The representative of Israel suggested a correction to the second line of paragraph 3 of decision V/23. He proposed the replacement of the words "to be regarded as in kind" by the words "over and above". The Meeting took note of that suggestion but was unable to act on the proposal as the decision had already been adopted.

Trade in controlled substances and the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (decision V/24)

55. The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation attached importance to the decisions by the Parties to promote the recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting substances, including the associated trade aspects of those decisions, and his country intended to become a party to the Basel Convention in the near future. It also supported approaches which maintained consistency and complementarity between the Protocol and the Basel Convention, without duplicating or undercutting current arrangements. His delegation wished to observe that it might be appropriate for the Ozone Secretariat to consider notifying the secretariat of the Basel Convention that the Montreal Protocol was a separate arrangement within the terms of Article 11 of the Convention, in so far as ozone-depleting substances for recovery and recycling purposes were concerned.

56. In the ensuing discussion, several delegations expressed the view that the language of the draft decision on this subject was very vague and should be made more specific. The representative of the United States suggested that the Conference of Parties of the Montreal Protocol should request the Conference of Parties of the Basel Convention to exclude halons from the category of hazardous wastes in order to facilitate the necessary trade in halons between Montreal Protocol Parties. The suggestion was supported by the representative of the Commission of the European Communities. Another representative maintained that the vagueness of the language was deliberate. The President stated, after further discussion, that those Parties that were also parties to the Basel Convention should submit an appropriate resolution to the Conference of the Parties of that Convention.

Provision of information on the supply of controlled substances to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol (decision V/25)

57. The representative of Venezuela stated that the purpose of the draft decision on this subject was not clear and that its content could lend itself to varying interpretations. The Secretariat informed him that the draft decision was designed as a safeguard against unnecessary production, in view of the fact that the Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 were allowed to produce only to supply the basic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 after phase-out in the countries not operating under paragraph 1. The representative of the Netherlands pointed out that there had been a consensus in favour of the draft decision in the Preparatory Meeting because producing countries wanted to guarantee that production was actually intended to meet basic domestic needs in countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5. Several representatives then expressed their support for the Venezuelan position, while others agreed with the representative of the Netherlands. The representative of Italy emphasized how important it was that some decision, even if it were only a decision in principle, should be taken promptly. In view of the starting date that appeared in the draft decision, there would be opportunities to refine it at a later stage.

58. The representative of China, having agreed that the text was unclear, raised the objection that the draft decision referred only to the supplies of controlled substances requested by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and not to other Parties. He proposed that no decision should be taken until the next Meeting of the Parties. The Secretariat informed him that, in the Montreal Protocol, the expression "basic domestic needs" applied only to the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, the other Parties being regulated in other ways. The expression was, in fact, related to the grace periods.

59. The representatives of Venezuela and China said that, under the circumstances and provided they were assured that the matter would be reopened in the Open-ended Working Group in 1994 and would not be finally decided until the next Meeting of the Parties, they agreed to withdraw their objections. The representatives who took the floor in the discussion and the President both agreed that the matter would be reopened in 1994.

Destruction technologies (decision V/26)

60. Following the adoption of decision V/26, one representative expressed his disappointment that the incremental costs that might be covered by the Multilateral Fund did not include research and development costs for destruction technologies.

The Seventh Meeting of the Parties (decision V/28)

61. On the proposal of the representative of the United Kingdom, the Meeting adopted a decision on the above subject.

Other decision

62. Following an explanation from the Secretariat, the Meeting endorsed the selection of Dr. Suely Carvalho (Brazil) as Co-Chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.

V. OTHER MATTERS

63. At the request of the representative of Austria, the Meeting decided to include as an annex to its report a memorandum issued in August 1993 by the Ministers responsible for environmental matters in Germany, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Austria on further measures to protect the ozone layer from partly halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). The text of the memorandum is attached as annex V to the present report.

64. The representative of Denmark stated that a number of Parties had signed two declarations, one of which concerned the use of HCFCs and one of which concerned the use of methyl bromide. The texts of these declarations are attached to the present report as annex VI and VII, respectively.

65. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that several countries with economies in transition had signed a declaration. The text of this declaration is attached to the present report as annex VIII.

66. The representative of the Russian Federation introduced a proposed draft decision under agenda item 8, which read as follows:

"Considering the declaration of the heads of delegation of some Eastern European countries on the consideration by the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol of the question of establishing for countries with economies in transition a special status in implementing the Montreal Protocol, to request the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties and the Implementation Committee to prepare a report on the question for the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol".

It was decided to record that proposal in the report of the Meeting.

67. The representative of India gave to the Secretariat a proposal to extend the indicative list of incremental costs to cover research and development. The Secretariat stated that it would not be possible for the current Meeting to consider that proposal.

68. One representative stated that it was important for the Parties to consider further control measures on methyl bromide, noting that his country had taken significant steps in that area. Another representative stated that, while measures to control the release to the atmosphere of methyl bromide should be encouraged, additional controls on methyl bromide were premature. Only after the completion of the scientific review currently being carried out by the Technological and Economic Assessment Panel could such action be considered.

69. The representative of Canada presented a report on his country's development of a World Ozone and Ultraviolet Data Centre. He said that, owing to Canada's 30-year experience in operating the World Ozone Data Centre (WODC) for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and because ozone data was needed for the study of ultraviolet radiation measurements, the Secretary-General of WMO had asked Canada in 1992 to consider establishing a data centre which could serve the needs of the science community for both ultraviolet (UV) radiation data and ozone data. Canada had accepted that challenge in June 1992. Canada had a network of 12 ground-based ozone stations equipped with the Brewer spectrophotometer, which measured both ozone and the spectrum of ultraviolet-B radiation. The data were transmitted electronically in real time to computing centres in Toronto and Montreal, where the data from other similar stations worldwide would be accumulated. UV data from the Toronto station had provided new and convincing evidence that long-term mid-latitude ozone depletion would cause enhancement of the ground-level UV irradiation. An analysis, published in the 11 November 1993 issue of Science showed that, in the period 1989-1993, ozone had definitely influenced the accumulated UV radiation and that the ozone-based changes could be distinguished conclusively from changes caused by clouds and air pollution. That new finding strengthened what was considered to be the weakest link in the chain between ozone-depleting substances and environmental damage.

70. The representative of a non-governmental organization reported on its activities to protect the ozone layer including hosting the 3rd Taipei International Conference on Ozone Layer Protection and the issuing of Ozone Layer Protection Awards. He recommended that ODS control measures be accompanied by such incentives.

71. In conclusion, the Meeting expressed its gratitude to the Government of Thailand and the Thai people for their hospitality and generosity.

VI. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

72. The present report was adopted at the closing session of the Meeting, on 19 November 1993, on the basis of the draft report as contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.5/L.3 and Add.1-4.

VII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

73. After the customary exchange of curtesies, the President declared the Meeting closed at 5.45 p.m. on 19 November 1993.

Annex I

FORMATS FOR REPORTING DATA UNDER THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL INTRODUCTION SHEET

INTRODUCTION SHEET
  1. The data formats are for the use of the Parties in reporting data on the production, import and export of each individual substance listed in the annexes of the Montreal Protocol as amended in London and Copenhagen, and as required by Article 7.

  2. There are ten forms for reporting the required data:

  3. Parties are requested to report the data in metric tonnes, without multiplying by the relevant ODPs (ozone depleting potentials). The data on each substance should also include isomers.

  4. The data reported in accordance with the formats will be used to determine the calculated levels of consumption upon which the control measures are based. It is therefore crucial that data be provided separately for each individual substance listed in the formats.

  5. It should be noted that paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 both provide that the Parties should submit the best possible estimates where actual data are not available.

  6. In accordance with the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the Reporting of Data, the Parties are requested to report on the extra production as allowed to meet the basic domestic needs of countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol. The quantity of the production increase and the country to be supplied by this production increase should be reported under "quantity" and "destination". The export figures as well as the production figures reported should include the increased amounts of production for supplying the Parties operating under Article 5, paragraph 1. The allowable increase in production should also be reported as metric tonnes.

  7. In accordance with the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the Reporting of Data, which held its first meeting at Nairobi on 6 and 7 December 1990, Parties having free-trade zones inside their territories should make a special effort to include in their data-reporting production, import and export figures for such zones.

  8. In accordance with the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the Reporting of Data, the quantities of controlled substances used for refilling the refrigeration and fire-extinguishing systems of ships in ports should be regarded as forming part of consumption of the country with jurisdiction over the port and should therefore not be included in its export figures.

  9. With regard to the data on "amounts destroyed", the Parties, approved, at their Fourth Meeting, destruction processes and regulatory standards for the destruction facilities. The amounts destroyed should be calculated on the basis of the destruction efficiency of the facility employed (see decision IV/11).

  10. Amounts used as feedstocks, e.g. amounts of carbon tetrachloride used as feedstock in the production of CFC 11 and 12, should be reported. They are to be subtracted from total production (see definition of "production" below).

  11. The word "used" in data formats 6, 7, 8 and 9 is for substances recovered from machinery, equipment, containment vessels, etc. which is imported or exported for the purpose of reclamation and recycling, reclamation and trade or destruction (see decision IV/24, paragraph 3, for further clarification). "New" means newly produced substances.

  12. The amounts recycled or reused are not to be regarded as production (see definition of "production" below).

  13. Data form 10 is intended for reporting imports from and/or exports to non-Parties.
DEFINITIONS
  1. "Production" means the amount of controlled substances produced, minus the amount destroyed by technologies approved by the Parties and minus the amount entirely used as feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. The amount recycled and reused is not to be considered as "production" (Article 1, paragraph 5 of the amended Protocol).

  2. "Consumption" means production plus imports minus exports of controlled substances (Article 1, paragraph 6, of the Amended Protocol). The imports and exports of recycled and used controlled substances will not be taken into account for calculating consumption (except when calculating the base year consumption under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol). (See decision IV/24, paragraph 2, of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol).

  3. "Calculated levels" of production, imports, exports and consumption mean levels determined in accordance with Article 3 (Article 1, paragraph 7, of the amended Protocol).

  4. Methyl chloroform is 1,1,1-trichloroethane and does not include 1,1,2trichloroethane.


Ref: Data form 1
Reporting of data under Article 7, paragraph 1

1986 DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF CFCs AND HALONS CONTROLLED BY THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Annex A substances
SUBSTANCES

PRODUCTION

IMPORTS

EXPORTS

GROUP I

CFCl3 (CFC-11)

     

CF2C12 (CFC-12)

     

C2F3C13 (CFC-113)

     

C2F4C12 (CFC-114)

     

C2F5C1 (CFC-115)

     

TOTAL FOR GROUP I

     

GROUP II

CF2BrC1 (HALON 1211)

     

CF3Br (HALON 1301)

     

C2F4Br2 (HALON 2402)

     

TOTAL FOR GROUP II

     

Notes:

  1. Please report the data by weight and not multiplied by ODP.
  2. Isomers should be included under each substance.


Ref: Data form 2
Reporting of data necessary to calculate base year consumption under Article 2 F

1989 DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF CFCs CONTROLLED BY THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Annex A substances
SUBSTANCES

PRODUCTION

IMPORTS

EXPORTS

GROUP I
CFCl
3 (CFC-11)

     

CF2Cl2 (CFC-12)

     

C2F3Cl3 (CFC-113)

     

C2F4Cl2 (CFC-114)

     

C2F5Cl (CFC-115)

     

TOTAL FOR GROUP I

     

Notes:

  1. Please report the data by weight and not multiplied by ODP.
  2. Isomers should be included under each substance.


Ref: Data form 3
Reporting of data under Article 7, paragraph 2

1989 DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF SUBSTANCES CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Annex B substances
SUBSTANCES

PRODUCTION

IMPORTS

EXPORTS

GROUP I

CF3Cl (CFC-13)

     

C2FCl5 (CFC-111)

     

C2F2Cl4 (CFC-112)

     

C3FCl7 (CFC-211)

     

C3F2Cl6 (CFC-212)

     

C3F3Cl5 (CFC-213)

     

C3F4Cl4 (CFC-214)

     

C3F5Cl3 (CFC-215)

     

C3F6Cl2 (CFC-216)

     

C3F7Cl (CFC-217)

     

TOTAL FOR GROUP I

     

GROUP II

CCl4 (carbon tetrachloride)

     

GROUP III

C2H3Cl3*
(methyl chloroform, i.e. 1,1,1-trichloroethane

     

Notes:

  1. Please report the data by weight and not multiplied by ODP.
  2. Isomers should be included under each substance.


Ref: Data form 4
Reporting of data under Article 7, paragraph 2

1989 DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF SUBSTANCES CONTROLLED BY THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Annex C substances
SUBSTANCES

PRODUCTION

IMPORTS

EXPORTS

GROUP I

CHFCl2 (HCFC-21)

     

CHF2Cl (HCFC-22)

     

CH2FCl (HCFC-31)

     

C2HFCl4 (HCFC-121)

     

C2HF2Cl3 (HCFC-122)

     

C2HF3Cl2 (HCFC-123)

     

CHCl2CF3 (HCFC-123)

     

C2HF4Cl (HCFC-124)

     

CHFClCF3 (HCFC-124)

     

C2H2FCl3 (HCFC-131)

     

C2H2F2Cl2 (HCFC-132)

     

C2H2F3Cl (HCFC-133)

     

C2H3FCl2 (HCFC-141)

     

CH3CFCl2 (HCFC-141b)

     

C2H3F2Cl (HCFC-142)

     

CH3CF2Cl (HCFC-142b)

     

C2H4FCl (HCFC-151)

     

C3HFCl6 (HCFC-221)

     

C3HF2Cl5 (HCFC-222)

     

C3HF3Cl4 (HCFC-223)

     

C3HF4Cl3 (HCFC-224)

     

C3HF5Cl2 (HCFC-225)

     

CF3CF2CHCl2 (HCFC-225ca)

     

CF2ClCF2CHClF (HCFC-225cb)

     

C3HF6Cl (HCFC-226)

     

C3H2FCl5 (HCFC-231)

     

C3H2F2Cl4 (HCFC-232)

     

C3H2F3Cl3 (HCFC-233)

     

C3H2F4Cl2 (HCFC-234)

     

C3H2F5Cl (HCFC-235)

     

C3H3FCl4 (HCFC-241)

     

C3H3F2Cl3 (HCFC-242)

     

C3H3F3Cl2 (HCFC-243)

     

C3H3F4Cl (HCFC-244)

     

C3H4FCl3 (HCFC-251)

     

C3H4F2Cl2 (HCFC-252)

     

C3H4F3Cl (HCFC-253)

     

C3H5FCl2 (HCFC-261)

     

C3H5F2Cl (HCFC-262)

     

C3H6FCl (HCFC-271)

     

GROUP II

CHFBr2

     

CHF2Br (HBFC-2281)

     

CH2FBr

     

C2HFBr4

     

C2HF2Br3

     

C2HF3Br2

     

C2HF4Br

     

C2H2FBr3

     

C2H2F2Br2

     

C2H2F3Br

     

C2H3FBr2

     

C2H3F2Br

     

C2H4FBr

     

C3HFBr6

     

C3HF2Br5

     

C3HF3Br4

     

C3HF4Br3

     

C3HF5Br2

     

C3HF6Br

     

C3H2FBr5

     

C3H2F2Br4

     

C3H2F3Br3

     

C3H2F4Br2

     

C3H2F5Br

     

C3H3FBr4

     

C3H3F2Br3

     

C3H3F3Br2

     

C3H3F4Br

     

C3H4FBr3

     

C3H4F2Br2

     

C3H4F3Br

     

C3H5FBr2

     

C3H5F2Br

     

C3H6FBr

     

Notes:

  1. Please report the data by weight and not multiplied by ODP.
  2. Isomers should be included under each substance.


Ref: Data form 5

Reporting of data under Article 7, paragraph 2

1991 DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF SUBSTANCES CONTROLLED BY THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Annex E substances
SUBSTANCE

PRODUCTION

IMPORTS

EXPORTS

AMOUNTS USED FOR QUARANTINE AND PRE-SHIPMENT APPLICATION

CH3Br METHYL BROMIDE

       


Ref: Data form 6
Reporting of data under Article 7, paragraphs 3 and 3 bis and decision IV/24

DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF SUBSTANCES CONTROLLED BY THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Year: January - December 19__
Annex A substances
ANNEX A
SUBSTANES
TOTAL PROCTION AMONTS DESTOYED AMOUNTS FOR FEED STOCKS INCREASED PRODUCTION* IMPORTS EXPORTS
QUAN** DEST**

NEW

USED

RECYCLED

NEW

USED

RECYCLED

GROUP I

CFCl3 (CFC-11)

                     

CF2Cl2 (CFC-12)

                     

C2F3Cl3 (CFC-113)

                     

C2F4Cl2 (CFC-114)

                     

C2F5Cl (CFC-115)

                     

TOTAL FOR GROUP I

                     

GROUP II

CF2BrCl (HALON 1211)

                     

CF3Br (HALON 1301)

                     

C2F4Br2 (HALON 2402)

                     

TOTAL FOR GROUP II

                     

Notes:

  1. Please report the data by weight and not multiplied by ODP.
  2. Isomers should be included under each substance.


Ref: Data form 7
Reporting of data under Article 7, paragraph 3 and decision IV/24

DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF SUBSTANCES CONTROLLED BY THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Year: January - December 19__
Annex B substances
ANNEX B
SUBSTANCES

TOTAL
PRODUCTION

AMOUNTS
DESTROYED
AMOUNTS FOR FEED STOCKS INCREASED PRODUCTION* AS FURTHER ALLOWED IMPORTS EXPORTS
QUAN** DEST** NEW USED RECYCLED NEW USED RECYCLED
GROUP I

CF3Cl(CFC-13)

                     

C2FCl5(CFC-111)

                     

C2F2Cl4(CFC-112)

                     

C3FCl7(CFC-211)

                     

C3F2Cl6(CFC-212)

                     

C2F3Cl5(CFC-213)

                     

C3F4Cl4(CFC-214)

                     

C3F5Cl3(CFC-215)

                     

C3F6Cl2(CFC-216)

                     

C3F7Cl(CFC-217)

                     

TOTAL FOR GROUP I

                     
GROUP II

CCl4
(carbon tetrachloride)

                     
Group III

C2H3Cl3***
(methyl chloroform, i.e. 1,1,1-trichloroethane

                     

Notes:

  1. Please report the data by weight and not multiplied by ODP.
  2. Isomers should be included under each substance.


Ref: Data form 8
Reporting of data under Article 7, paragraphs 3 and 3 bis and decision IV/24

DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF SUBSTANCES CONTROLLED BY THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Year: January - December 19__
Annex C substances
ANNEX C
SUBSTANCES
TOTAL
PRODUCTION
AMOUNTS
DESTROYED
AMOUNTS FOR FEED STOCKS IMPORTS EXPORTS

NEW

USED

RECYCLED

NEW

USED

RECYCLED

GROUP I

CHFCl2 (HCFC-21)

                 

CHF2Cl (HCFC-22)

                 

CH2FCl (HCFC-31)

                 

C2HFCl4 (HCFC-121)

                 

C2HF2Cl3 (HCFC-122)

                 

C2HF3Cl2 (HCFC-123)

                 

CHCl2CF3 (HCFC-123)

                 

C2HF4Cl (HCFC-124)

                 

CHFClCF3 (HCFC-124)

                 

C2H2FCl3 (HCFC-131)

                 

C2H2F2Cl2 (HCFC-132)

                 

C2H2F3Cl (HCFC-133)

                 

C2H3FCl2 (HCFC-141)

                 

CH3CFCl2 (HCFC-141b)

                 

C2H3F2Cl (HCFC-142)

                 

CH3CF2Cl (HCFC-142b)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2H4FCl (HCFC-151)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HFCl6 (HCFC-221)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF2Cl5 (HCFC-222)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF3Cl4 (HCFC-223)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF4Cl3 (HCFC-224)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF5Cl2 (HCFC-225)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CF3CF2CHCl2 (HCFC-225ca)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CF2ClCF2CHClF (HCFC-225cb)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF6Cl (HCFC-226)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2FCl5 (HCFC-231)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2F2Cl4 (HCFC-232)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2F3Cl3 (HCFC-233)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2F4Cl2 (HCFC-234)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2F5Cl (HCFC-235)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H3FCl4 (HCFC-241)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H3F2Cl3 (HCFC-242)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H3F3Cl2 (HCFC-243)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H3F4Cl (HCFC-244)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H4FCl3 (HCFC-251)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H4F2Cl2 (HCFC-252)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H4F3Cl (HCFC-253)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H5FCl2 (HCFC-261)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H5F2Cl (HCFC-262)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H6FCl (HCFC-271)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP II

CHFBr2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHF2Br (HBFC-22B1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CH2FBr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2HFBr4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2HF2Br3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2HF3Br2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2HF4Br

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2H2FBr3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2H2F2Br2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2H2F3Br

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2H3FBr2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2H3F2Br

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C2H4FBr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HFBr6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF2Br5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF3Br4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF4Br3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF5Br2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3HF6Br

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2FBr5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2F2Br4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2F3Br3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2F4Br2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H2F5Br

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H3FBr4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H3F2Br3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H3F3Br2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H3F4Br

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H4FBr3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H4F2Br2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H4F3Br

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H5FBr2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H5F2Br

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3H6FBr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ref: Data form 9
Report of data under Article 7, paragraph 3 and decision IV/24

DATA ON PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF SUBSTANCES CONTROLLED BY THE AMENDED MONTREAL PROTOCOL (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Year: January - December 19__
Annex E substances
ANNEX E
SUBSTANCE
TOTAL
PRODUCTION
AMOUNTS AMOUNTS FOR FEED STOCK INCREASED
PRODUCTION*
IMPORTS EXPORTS
DESTROYED QUARANTINE
AND PRE-
SHIPMENT

QUAN**

DEST**

NEW

USED

RECYCLED

NEW

USED

RECYCLED

GROUP 1

CH3Br METHYL BROMIDE
                       

Notes:

  1. Please report the data by weight and not multiplied by ODP.
  2. Isomers should be included under each substance.


Ref: Data form 10
Reporting of data under Article 7, paragraphs 3 and 3 bis and decision IV/24

DATA ON IMPORTS FROM AND/OR EXPORTS TO NON-PARTIES (metric tonnes)


Country: ______________________
Year: January - December 19__

SUBSTANCE

IMPORTS FROM NON-PARTIES

EXPORTS TO NON-PARTIES
NEW USED RECYCLED NEW USED RECYCLED
             
             
             
             
             

Notes:

  1. Please report the data by weight and not multiplied by ODP.
  2. Isomers should be included under each substance.

Annex II

TRUST FUND FOR THE MULTILATERAL FUND UNDER THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON THE SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER SCALE OF 1994, 1995 AND 1996 CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE PARTIES BASED ON THE UNITED NATIONS SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS WITH NO PARTY PAYING MORE THAN 25 PER CENT (IN UNITED STATES DOLLARS)

|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| | | PERCENTAGES | ADJUSTED | | | |


| | UN SCALE | ADJUSTED TO | PERCENTAGES | 1 9 9 4 | 1 9 9 5 | 1 9 9 6 |


| PARTY | OF | EXCLUDE | WITH 25% | CONTRIBUTIONS | CONTRIBUTIONS | CONTRIBUTIONS |


| | ASSESSMENTS | NON | CEILING | BY PARTIES | BY PARTIES | BY PARTIES |


| | | CONTRIBUTORS | CONSIDERED | (US$) | (US$) | (US$) |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| A. NON-PAYING ART 5 PARA 1 | | | | | | |


| DEVELOPING COUNTRIES | | | | | | |


|-----------------------------| | | | | | |


| Algeria | 0.16% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Antigua and Barbuda | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Argentina | 0.57% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Bahamas | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Bahrain | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Bangladesh | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Barbados | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Benin | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Botswana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Brazil | 1.59% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Brunei Darussalam | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Burkina Faso | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Cameroon | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Central African Republic | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Chile | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| China | 0.77% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Costa Rica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Cote d'Ivoire | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Croatia | 0.13% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Cuba | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Dominica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Ecuador | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Egypt | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| El Salvador | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Fiji | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Gambia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Ghana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Grenada | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Guatemala | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Guinea | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Guyana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Honduras | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| India | 0.36% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Indonesia | 0.16% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 0.77% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Jamaica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Jordan | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Kenya | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Kiribati | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Lebanon | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Libyan Arab Jamahiriya | 0.24% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Malawi | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Malaysia | 0.12% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Maldives | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Malta | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Marshall Islands | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Mauritius | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Mexico | 0.88% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Namibia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Nicaragua | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Niger | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Nigeria | 0.20% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Pakistan | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Panama | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Papua New Guinea | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Paraguay | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Peru | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Philippines | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Romania | 0.17% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Saint Kitts and Nevis | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Saint Lucia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Samoa | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Senegal | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Seychelles | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Slovenia | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Solomon Islands | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Sri Lanka | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Sudan | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Swaziland | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Syrian Arab Republic | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Thailand | 0.11% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Togo | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Trinidad and Tobago | 0.05% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Tunisia | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Turkey | 0.27% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Tuvalu | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Uganda | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Tanzania, United Rep. of | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Uruguay | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Venezuela | 0.49% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Yugoslavia | 0.16% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Zambia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


| Zimbabwe | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| SUBTOTAL (GROUP A) | 8.53% | 0.00% | 0.00000% | 0 | 0 | 0 |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| B. PAYING DEVELOPING | | | | | | |


| COUNTRIES | | | | | | |


|-----------------------------| | | | | | |


| Cyprus | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0.02300% | 34,887 | 34,887 | 34,887 |


| Kuwait | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.28753% | 436,091 | 436,091 | 436,091 |


| Korea, Republic of | 0.69% | 0.69% | 0.79359% | 1,203,611 | 1,203,611 | 1,203,611 |


| Saudi Arabia | 0.96% | 0.96% | 1.10413% | 1,674,590 | 1,674,590 | 1,674,590 |


| Singapore | 0.12% | 0.12% | 0.13802% | 209,324 | 209,324 | 209,324 |


| United Arab Emirates | 0.21% | 0.21% | 0.24153% | 366,317 | 366,317 | 366,317 |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| SUBTOTAL (GROUP B) | 2.25% | 2.25% | 2.58779% | 3,924,820 | 3,924,820 | 3,924,820 |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| C. DEVELOPED COUNTRIES | | | | | | |


| (GENERAL) | | | | | | |


|-----------------------------| | | | | | |


| Australia | 1.51% | 1.51% | 1.73670% | 2,633,990 | 2,633,990 | 2,633,990 |


| Austria | 0.75% | 0.75% | 0.86260% | 1,308,273 | 1,308,273 | 1,308,273 |


| Belarus | 0.48% | 0.48% | 0.55206% | 837,295 | 837,295 | 837,295 |


| Bulgaria | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.14952% | 226,767 | 226,767 | 226,767 |


| Canada | 3.11% | 3.11% | 3.57691% | 5,424,973 | 5,424,973 | 5,424,973 |


| Czech Republic | 0.42% | 0.42% | 0.48305% | 732,633 | 732,633 | 732,633 |


| Finland | 0.57% | 0.57% | 0.65557% | 994,288 | 994,288 | 994,288 |


| Hungary | 0.18% | 0.18% | 0.20702% | 313,986 | 313,986 | 313,986 |


| Iceland | 0.03% | 0.03% | 0.03450% | 52,331 | 52,331 | 52,331 |


| Israel | 0.23% | 0.23% | 0.26453% | 401,204 | 401,204 | 401,204 |


| Japan | 12.45% | 12.45% | 14.31912% | 21,717,336 | 21,717,336 | 21,717,336 |


| Liechtenstein | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.01150% | 17,444 | 17,444 | 17,444 |


| Monaco | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.01150% | 17,444 | 17,444 | 17,444 |


| New Zealand | 0.24% | 0.24% | 0.27603% | 418,647 | 418,647 | 418,647 |


| Norway | 0.55% | 0.55% | 0.63257% | 959,400 | 959,400 | 959,400 |


| Poland | 0.47% | 0.47% | 0.54056% | 819,851 | 819,851 | 819,851 |


| Russian Federation | 6.71% | 6.71% | 7.71737% | 11,704,685 | 11,704,685 | 11,704,685 |


| Slovakia | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.14952% | 226,767 | 226,767 | 226,767 |


| South Africa | 0.41% | 0.41% | 0.47155% | 715,189 | 715,189 | 715,189 |


| Sweden | 1.11% | 1.11% | 1.27664% | 1,936,244 | 1,936,244 | 1,936,244 |


| Switzerland | 1.11% | 1.11% | 1.27664% | 1,936,244 | 1,936,244 | 1,936,244 |


| Ukraine | 1.87% | 1.87% | 2.15074% | 3,261,961 | 3,261,961 | 3,261,961 |


| United States of America | 25.00% | 25.00% ! 25.00000% | 37,916,667 | 37,916,667 | 37,916,667 |


| Uzbekistan | 0.26% | 0.26% | 0.29903% | 453,535 | 453,535 | 453,535 |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| SUBTOTAL (GROUP C) | 57.74% | 57.74% | 62.65527% | 95,027,155 | 95,027,156 | 95,027,156 |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| D. DEVELOPED COUNTRIES | | | | | | |


| (EEC) | | | | | | |


|-----------------------------| | | | | | |


| Belgium | 1.06% | 1.06% | 1.21914% | 1,849,026 | 1,849,026 | 1,849,026 |


| Denmark | 0.65% | 0.65% | 0.74758% | 1,133,837 | 1,133,837 | 1,133,837 |


| France | 6.00% | 6.00% | 6.90078% | 10,466,186 | 10,466,186 | 10,466,186 |


| Germany | 8.93% | 8.93% | 10.27066% | 15,577,174 | 15,577,174 | 15,577,174 |


| Greece | 0.35% | 0.35% | 0.40255% | 610,528 | 610,528 | 610,528 |


| Ireland | 0.18% | 0.18% | 0.20702% | 313,986 | 313,986 | 313,986 |


| Italy | 4.29% | 4.29% | 4.93406% | 7,483,323 | 7,483,323 | 7,483,323 |


| Luxembourg | 0.06% | 0.06% | 0.06901% | 104,662 | 104,662 | 104,662 |


| Netherlands | 1.50% | 1.50% | 1.72520% | 2,616,547 | 2,616,547 | 2,616,547 |


| Portugal | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.23003% | 348,873 | 348,873 | 348,873 |


| Spain | 1.98% | 1.98% | 2.27726% | 3,453,841 | 3,453,841 | 3,453,841 |


| United Kingdom | 5.02% | 5.02% | 5.77365% | 8,756,709 | 8,756,709 | 8,756,709 |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| SUBTOTAL (GROUP D) | 30.22% | 30.22% | 34.75694% | 52,714,691 | 52,714,691 | 52,714,691 |


|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


|=============================|===============|===============!===============|===============|===============|===============|


| GRAND TOTAL | 98.74% | 90.21% ! 100.00000% | 151,666,666 | 151,666,667 | 151,666,667 |


|=============================|===============|===============!===============|===============|===============|===============|


Annex III

TRUST FUND FOR THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON THE SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER SCALE OF 1994 AND 1995 CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE PARTIES BASED ON THE UNITED NATIONS SCALE OF ASSESSMENT WITH NO PARTY PAYING MORE THAN 25 PER CENT (IN UNITED STATES DOLLARS)

|----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| | | PERCENTAGES | ADJUSTED | | |


| | UN SCALE | ADJUSTED TO | PERCENTAGES | 1 9 9 4 | 1 9 9 5 |


| PARTY | OF | EXCLUDE | WITH 25% | CONTRIBUTIONS | CONTRIBUTIONS |


| | ASSESSMENTS | NON | CEILING | BY PARTIES | BY PARTIES |


| | | CONTRIBUTORS | CONSIDERED | | |


|----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|


| Algeria | 0.16% | 0.16% | 0.16% | 4,533 | 5,487 |


| Antigua and Barbuda | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Argentina | 0.57% | 0.57% | 0.57% | 16,150 | 19,547 |


| Australia | 1.51% | 1.51% | 1.52% | 42,783 | 51,783 |


| Austria | 0.75% | 0.75% | 0.75% | 21,250 | 25,720 |


| Bahamas | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Bahrain | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Bangladesh | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Barbados | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Belarus | 0.48% | 0.48% | 0.48% | 13,600 | 16,461 |


| Belgium | 1.06% | 1.06% | 1.06% | 30,033 | 36,351 |


| Benin | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Botswana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Brazil | 1.59% | 1.59% | 1.60% | 45,049 | 54,526 |


| Brunei Darussalam | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Bulgaria | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.13% | 3,683 | 4,458 |


| Burkina Faso | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Cameroon | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Canada | 3.11% | 3.11% | 3.12% | 88,115 | 106,652 |


| Central African Republic | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Chile | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| China | 0.77% | 0.77% | 0.77% | 21,816 | 26,406 |


| Costa Rica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Cote d'Ivoire | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Croatia | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.13% | 3,683 | 4,458 |


| Cuba | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Cyprus | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Czech Republic | 0.42% | 0.42% | 0.42% | 11,900 | 14,403 |


| Denmark | 0.65% | 0.65% | 0.65% | 18,416 | 22,291 |


| Dominica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Ecuador | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Egypt | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| El Salvador | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Fiji | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Finland | 0.57% | 0.57% | 0.57% | 16,150 | 19,547 |


| France | 6.00% | 6.00% | 6.02% | 169,997 | 205,759 |


| Gambia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Germany | 8.93% | 8.93% | 8.96% | 253,012 | 306,238 |


| Ghana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Greece | 0.35% | 0.35% | 0.35% | 9,917 | 12,003 |


| Grenada | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Guatemala | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Guinea | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Guyana | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Honduras | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Hungary | 0.18% | 0.18% | 0.18% | 5,100 | 6,173 |


| Iceland | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| India | 0.36% | 0.36% | 0.36% | 10,200 | 12,346 |


| Indonesia | 0.16% | 0.16% | 0.16% | 4,533 | 5,487 |


| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 0.77% | 0.77% | 0.77% | 21,816 | 26,406 |


| Ireland | 0.18% | 0.18% | 0.18% | 5,100 | 6,173 |


| Israel | 0.23% | 0.23% | 0.23% | 6,517 | 7,887 |


| Italy | 4.29% | 4.29% | 4.31% | 121,548 | 147,118 |


| Jamaica | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Japan | 12.45% | 12.45% | 12.50% | 352,744 | 426,950 |


| Jordan | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Kenya | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Kiribati | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Kuwait | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | 7,083 | 8,573 |


| Lebanon | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Libyan Arab Jamahiriya | 0.24% | 0.24% | 0.24% | 6,800 | 8,230 |


| Liechtenstein | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Luxembourg | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Malawi | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Malaysia | 0.12% | 0.12% | 0.12% | 3,400 | 4,115 |


| Maldives | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Malta | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Marshall Islands | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Mauritius | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Mexico | 0.88% | 0.88% | 0.88% | 24,933 | 30,178 |


| Monaco | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Namibia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Netherlands | 1.50% | 1.50% | 1.51% | 42,499 | 51,440 |


| New Zealand | 0.24% | 0.24% | 0.24% | 6,800 | 8,230 |


| Nicaragua | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Niger | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Nigeria | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% | 5,667 | 6,859 |


| Norway | 0.55% | 0.55% | 0.55% | 15,583 | 18,861 |


| Pakistan | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Panama | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Papua New Guinea | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Paraguay | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Peru | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Philippines | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Poland | 0.47% | 0.47% | 0.47% | 13,316 | 16,118 |


| Portugal | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% | 5,667 | 6,859 |


| Korea, Republic of | 0.69% | 0.69% | 0.69% | 19,550 | 23,662 |


| Romania | 0.17% | 0.17% | 0.17% | 4,817 | 5,830 |


| Russian Federation | 6.71% | 6.71% | 6.74% | 190,114 | 230,107 |


| Saint Kitts and Nevis | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Saint Lucia | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Samoa | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Saudi Arabia | 0.96% | 0.96% | 0.96% | 27,200 | 32,921 |


| Senegal | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Seychelles | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Singapore | 0.12% | 0.12% | 0.12% | 3,400 | 4,115 |


| Slovakia | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.13% | 3,683 | 4,458 |


| Slovenia | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Solomon Islands | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| South Africa | 0.41% | 0.41% | 0.41% | 11,616 | 14,060 |


| Spain | 1.98% | 1.98% | 1.99% | 56,099 | 67,901 |


| Sri Lanka | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Sudan | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Swaziland | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Sweden | 1.11% | 1.11% | 1.11% | 31,449 | 38,065 |


| Switzerland | 1.11% | 1.11% | 1.11% | 31,449 | 38,065 |


| Syrian Arab Republic | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Thailand | 0.11% | 0.11% | 0.11% | 3,117 | 3,772 |


| Togo | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Trinidad and Tobago | 0.05% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Tunisia | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Turkey | 0.27% | 0.27% | 0.27% | 7,650 | 9,259 |


| Tuvalu | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Uganda | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Ukraine | 1.87% | 1.87% | 1.88% | 52,982 | 64,128 |


| United Arab Emirates | 0.21% | 0.21% | 0.21% | 5,950 | 7,202 |


| United Kingdom | 5.02% | 5.02% | 5.04% | 142,231 | 172,152 |


| Tanzania, United Rep. of | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| United States of America | 25.00% | 25.00% ! 25.00% | 705,684 | 854,138 |


| Uruguay | 0.04% | 0.00% ! 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Uzbekistan | 0.26% | 0.26% | 0.26% | 7,367 | 8,916 |


| Venezuela | 0.49% | 0.49% ! 0.49% | 13,883 | 16,804 |


| Yugoslavia | 0.16% | 0.16% ! 0.16% | 4,533 | 5,487 |


| Zambia | 0.01% | 0.00% ! 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| Zimbabwe | 0.01% | 0.00% ! 0.00% | 0 | 0 |


| | | ! | | |


| EEC | 2.50% | 2.50% ! 2.50% | 70,568 | 85,414 |


| | | ! | | |


|============================|===============|===============!===============|===============|===============|


| TOTAL | 101.24% | 99.73% ! 100.00% | 2,822,735 | 3,416,550 |


|============================|===============|===============!===============|===============|===============|


Annex IV

TRUST FUND FOR THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER: APPROVED 1993, REVISED 1994 AND APPROVED 1995 BUDGETS FOR THE OZONE SECRETARIAT

 10 PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT (a)


 w/m 1993 w/m 1994 w/m 1995


 1100 Project personnel (Title and grade) ----- ----- -----


 1101 Secretary (Coordinator) (D-1) 6 56,000 6 58,000 6 59,000


 (shared with VC)


 1102 Deputy Secretary (Lawyer) (P-4/5) 12 96,000 12 98,000 12 100,000


 1103 Programme Officer (Lawyer) (P-3) 12 77,000 12 79,000 12 81,000


 1104 Programme Officer (P-3/4) 6 38,500 6 41,000 6 43,000


 (Chemist/Scientist)


 (shared with VC)


 1105 Administrative Officer (P-2/3) 6 32,000 6 34,000 6 36,000


 (shared with VC)


 1199 Subtotal 299,500 310,000 319,000


 1200 Consultants (b)


 1201 Assistance in data reporting, 100,000 25,000 25,000


 analysis and promotion


 of the protocol


 1299 Subtotal 100,000 25,000 25,000


 1300 Administrative support costs (c)


 Support staff costs (Title and grade)


 -------------------


 1301 Administrative Assistant (G-6) 6 7,500 6 8,000 6 8,500


 (shared with VC)


 1302 Senior Secretary (G-4) 12 13,000 12 14,000 12 15,000


 1304 Secretary (shared with VC) (G-4) 6 6,500 6 7,000 6 7,500


 1305 Secretary (shared with VC) (G-4) 6 6,500 6 7,000 6 7,500


 1306 Document Clerk (G-3) 12 6,000 12 6,500 12 7,000


 1320 Temporary assistance 5,000 5,000 5,000


 Subtotal support staff costs 44,500 47,500 50,500


 Conference servicing costs (d)


 --------------------------------


 1321 Open-ended working group meetings 377,000 370,000 740,000


 1322 Preparatory and Parties meetings 272,000 393,000 393,000


 1323 Meetings of the assessment panel 11,500 30,000 30,000


 1324 Meetings of the Bureau 74,000 37,000 37,000


 1325 Meeting of the committees 33,000 25,000 25,000


 1326 Informal consultation meetings 20,000 10,000 20,000


 Subtotal conference-servicing costs 787,500 865,000 1,245,000


 1399 Subtotal 832,000 912,500 1,295,500


 1600 Travel on official business (e)


 1601 Secretariat staff 70,000 100,000 80,000


 1602 UNEP conference-servicing staff 30,000 20,000 20,000


 1699 Subtotal 100,000 120,000 100,000


 1999 Component total 1,331,500 1,367,500 1,739,500


 30 TRAINING/PARTICIPATION COMPONENT


 3300 Participation costs of developing countries (f)


 3301 Assessment panel meetings 240,000 300,000 300,000


 3302 Preparatory and Parties meetings 240,000 240,000 240,000


 3303 Open-ended working group meetings 240,000 180,000 360,000


 3304 Bureau meetings 36,000 24,000 24,000


 3305 Committee meetings 60,000 48,000 48,000


 3399 Subtotal 816,000 792,000 972,000


 3999 Component total 816,000 792,000 972,000


 40 EQUIPMENT AND PREMISES COMPONENT


 4100 Expendable equipment (items under $1,500)


 4101 Miscellaneous expendables (g) 10,000 18,000 21,000


 (shared with VC)


 4199 Subtotal 10,000 18,000 21,000


 4200 Non-expendable equipment (h)


 4201 Personal computers (shared with VC) 0 5,000 0


 4202 Portable computers (shared with VC) 0 3,500 0


 4203 E-mail/Bulletin board and others 0 6,000 5,000


 (shared with VC)


 4299 Subtotal 0 14,500 5,000


 4300 Rental of office premises


 4301 Rental of office premises (i) 15,000 15,000 15,000


 (shared with VC)


 4399 Subtotal 15,000 15,000 15,000


 4999 Component total 25,000 47,500 41,000


 50 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT 


 5100 Operation and maintenance of equipment


 5101 Maintenance of equipment 8,000 9,000 10,000


 (shared with VC)


 5199 Subtotal 8,000 9,000 10,000


 5200 Reporting costs (j)


 5201 Reporting (general) 40,000 40,000 50,000


 5202 Reporting (assessment panel reports) 0 66,000 25,000


 5299 Subtotal 40,000 106,000 75,000


 5300 Sundries


 5301 Communications 30,000 30,000 35,000


 5302 Freight charges (documents shipment) (k) 30,000 35,000 40,000


 5303 Others 5,000 5,000 5,000


 5399 Subtotal 65,000 70,000 80,000


 5400 Hospitality


 5401 Hospitality 17,500 17,500 17,500


 5499 Subtotal 17,500 17,500 17,500


 5999 Component total 130,500 202,500 182,500


99 TOTAL 2,303,000 2,409,500 2,935,000


Contingency 100,000 100,000 100,000


Programme support costs (13%) 299,390 313,235 381,550


GRAND TOTAL 2,702,390 2,822,735 3,416,550



Explanatory notes for the budget
  1. The 1993 budget is as approved by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and is presented here as a background to the revised 1994 and the 1995 budgets.

  2. Guidelines for the revised 1994 and the 1995 budgets are as follows:

      a) Although the staff costs have not included any significant increases, it is understood by the Parties that since the Secretariat has been in operation for a while, they agree to any upgrading of the posts as and when recommended by UNEP management in order to accomodate promotions of meriting staff members of the Secretariat. This, however, does not constitute a permanent upgrading of the posts as the original levels will be applied when new staff members are being recruited.

      b) 1201 The consultancy costs for assistance in data reporting, analysis and promotion of the Protocol are reduced from $100,000 for 1993 to $25,000 each for 1994 and 1995.

      c) 1301-1320 The grades of the support staff costs have been adjusted to reflect the new seven-level General Services salary scale effective in UNEP as of 1 May 1993.

      d) 1321-1327 The conference-servicing costs have been based on the following assumptions: One Open-ended Working Group meeting will be held during 1994 and two during 1995 in Geneva each using six languages and lasting seven days. The Preparatory and Parties meetings in 1994 and 1995 will be convened back to back as usual in Nairobi using six languages. The Assessment Panel meeting costs have been increased to $30,000 each year for 1994 and 1995 to realistically reflect the actual needs of holding these meetings will also increase in number. One Bureau meeting is scheduled for 1994 and two for 1995 and they will be held back-to-back with either the open-ended working group meetings or the preparatory and parties meetings. The costs of the meetings of the committees have been reduced in view of the reduced meetings during the years 1994 and 1995. Two informal consultation meetings for each 1994 (one meeting) and 1995 (two meetings) give flexibility to the UNEP Executive Director to tackle informally any emerging issues pertaining to the Protocol or its implementation.

      e) 1601-1602 The costs of travel on official business have been adjusted to $100,000 in 1994 and $80,000 for 1995 on the understanding that the preparatory and Parties meetings being held in Nairobi and allowing for a limited participation of the Secretariat in some of the Assessment Panel meetings. The travel for conference-servicing staff members has equally been adjusted accordingly.

      f) 3301-3305 The costs of participation of developing countries in the various Protocol meetings using an average of $6,000 per mission during 1994 and 1995) have been estimated as follows:- An increase to $300,000 has been allowed for each 1994 and 1995 for the participation in the Assessment Panel meetings in view of the mandate of the three panels to update their reports for submission to the Secretariat by 30 November 1994. The preparatory and Parties meetings participation costs for 1994 and 1995 have been kept at the same level of 1993 of $240,000. Costs of participation in the Open-ended Working Group meetings reflect the holding of only one meeting in 1994 and two in 1995 for thirty participants one from each country. Costs of the bureau meetings for 1994 and 1995 are based on three participants to each meeting. Costs of the committee meetings for 1994 and 1995 are based on 10 participants each year.

      g) 4101 The 1994 and 1995 costs of expendable equipment have been increased to $18,000 and $21,000 respectively to adequately cover pre-session documentation materials for the meetings.

      h) 4201 The cost of non-expendable equipment in 1994 is to allow for up-grading computing facilities and installation of electronic mail in the United Nations premises to which the Ozone Secretariat has moved back. The 1995 cost provides for normal office equipment up-grades.

      i) 4301 The 1994 and 1995 costs for rental of office premises have been kept at around the 1993 levels.

      j) 5201-5202 The general reporting costs increase for 1995 and the Assessment Panel reporting levels allowed for in 1994 and 1995 are in view of the reporting requirements.

      k) 5302 Only a modest increase in freight costs has been allowed for in 1994 and 1995.

Annex V

MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS IN GERMANY, LIECHTENSTEIN, SWITZERLAND AND AUSTRIA ON FURTHER MEASURES TO PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER FROM PARTLY HALOGENATED CHLOROFLOUROCARBONS (HCFCs)

In the face of the decisions reached by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 25 November 1992 at Copenhagen, and

Being concerned about the most recent measurements indicating once again a clear reduction in the protective ozone layer above the northern hemisphere, and

Being aware of the great progress being made in the development of alternative technologies that are less harmful to the environment,

The Ministers of the Environment of Germany, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Austria declare the following:

The Parties to the Montreal Protocol are therefore called upon to undertake all measures to phase out all ozone-depleting substances as quickly as possible.

Annex VI

DECLARATION ON HYDROFLUOROCARBONS (HCFCs)DECLARATION BY AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, BOTSWANA, DENMARK, EUROPEAN ECONOMICCOMMUNITY, FINLAND, GERMANY, ICELAND, ITALY, LIECHTENSTEIN,MALTA, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, UNITED KINGDOM AND ZIMBABWE

The above Parties present at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,

Concerned about the continuing depletion of the ozone layer of both the northern and southern hemispheres,

being aware that reductions in the emissions of HCFC will have a beneficial effect on the ozone layer, especially in the coming 10 years where chlorine concentrations in the atmosphere will reach a critical maximum,

being also aware that more environmentally sound alternative substances and technologies are already existing or are rapidly being developed and that in various areas a complete substitution of CFCs can already be achieved today without using HCFCs,

stress the need to strengthen further the control measures decided at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol,

declare their firm determination to take all appropriate measures to limit the use of HCFC to absolute necessary applications and to phase out the consumption of HCFCs as soon as possible but not later than the year 2015.

Annex VII

DECLARATION ON METHYL BROMIDE

DECLARATION BY AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, DENMARK, FINLAND, GERMANY, ICELAND, ISRAEL, ITALY, LIECHTENSTEIN, NETHERLANDS, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND,UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES AND ZIMBABWE

The above Parties present at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,

Concerned about the continuing depletion of the ozone layer of both the northern and southern hemispheres, partly due to methyl bromide,

Being aware that reductions in the emissions of methyl bromide will have a beneficial effect on the ozone layer, especially in the coming 10 years where chlorine concentrations in the atmosphere will reach a critical maximum,

Being also aware that in many cases more environmentally sound alternative substances, methods and technologies are already available and others are rapidly being developed,

Stress the need to strengthen the control measures decided at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol,

Declare their firm determination to reduce their consumption of methyl bromide by at least 25 per cent at the latest by the year 2000, and to phase out totally the consumption of methyl bromide as soon as technically possible.

Annex VIII

DECLARATION BY THE HEADS OF THE DELEGATIONS REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENTS OF: BELARUS, BULGARIA, ROMANIA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, AND UKRAINE ATTHE FIFTH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ONSUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER

We, the heads of the delegations of the group of countries with economies in transition and Parties to the Montreal Protocol attending the Meeting, namely: Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation and Ukraine, have discussed the state of affairs regarding the fulfilment of our countries' obligations under the Montreal Protocol,

We request the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to decide at the Sixth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on the question of the special status of countries with economies in transition, which would provide for concessions and a certain flexibility in the fulfilment of their obligations under the Montreal Protocol.