7th Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the 
Protection of the Ozone Layer and 17th Meeting of the Parties to 
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer  
-  Issue #4 

EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD) <http://www.iisd.org>

Written and edited by:

Karen Alvarenga, Ph.D. 
Ingrid Barnsley 
Paula Barrios 
Amber Moreen 
Noelle Eckley Selin 

Editor:

Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Director of IISD Reporting Services:

Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Vol. 19 No. 45
Thursday, 15 December 2005

Online at http://www.iisd.ca/ozone/mop17/ 

COP-7/MOP-17 HIGHLIGHTS:

WEDNESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2005

In morning and evening plenary sessions, delegates considered, 
among other issues: laboratory and analytical uses of carbon 
tetrachloride (CTC); compliance; ozone depleting substances (ODS); 
and CFC production by non-Article 5 parties. While the high-level 
segment of COP-7/MOP-17 will open on Thursday morning, the 
preparatory segment will reconvene to consider outstanding issues. 
Several contact groups met in the afternoon and evening.

PLENARY

DATES OF FUTURE PROTOCOL MEETINGS: Regarding its draft decision 
XVII/J on this issue (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3), 
the EC suggested changes to the timeframe for providing 
information on Protocol meeting dates, noting such changes allow 
the Secretariat to better plan meetings, and for parties to comply 
with submission deadlines. The US queried the feasibility of the 
Secretariat complying with the proposed changes. After informal 
consultations, delegates agreed to change the timeframe, make 
other minor changes and forward the amended draft decision to the 
high-level segment.

LABORATORY AND ANALYTICAL USES OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE: Chile, for 
the Latin America and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), presented the 
proposed draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.16) supported by 
INDONESIA and NIGERIA. The EC said it is working with Chile and 
others to ensure consistency with language in previous decisions. 
Co-Chair Land suggested interested parties consult informally.

EARLY ESSENTIAL-USE EXEMPTIONS FOR ARTICLE 5 PARTIES FOR MDIs: 
After Bangladesh introduced its draft decision regarding the need 
for CFCs for MDIs in addition to allowed amounts for 2007-2009 
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.15), the US, with the EC, pointed out 
similarities with GRULAC's proposal on CTC 
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.16), and suggested informal consultations. 
A joint contact group was formed to discuss the two proposals.

COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING ISSUES: Implementation Committee 
President Maas Goote (Netherlands) presented the report of the 
Implementation Committee's thirty-fifth meeting, held from 7-9 
December 2005 (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/35/10), and introduced several 
compliance-related draft decisions (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.3 and 
CRP.3/Add.1). He commended the high rate of data reporting for 
2004 and noted issues considered at the Committee's meeting, 
including the relevance of stockpiling to compliance, and 
reporting on research, development and information exchange under 
Article 9 of the Protocol (research, development, public awareness 
and exchange of information). He also supported review of the 
Protocol's compliance procedures, given the Implementation 
Committee's increased workload. Co-Chair Land noted the draft 
decisions would be forwarded to the high-level segment.

The EC said Greece recently ratified the Beijing Amendment, and 
NORWAY said it recently submitted information under Article 9. 
Noting the importance of reviewing the non-compliance procedure, 
AUSTRALIA said it had withdrawn its draft decision 
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.1) but planned to continue working on this 
issue. 

RESEARCH AND OBSERVATIONS TRUST FUND: The US introduced a draft 
decision to extend the trust fund for activities on research and 
observations relevant to the Convention (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/CRP.14). 
ARGENTINA, the CZECH REPUBLIC, for Central and Eastern European 
countries (CEE), the EC and CANADA expressed support for the draft 
decision, stressing the importance of research and observations in 
developing countries and countries with economies in transition. 
Several parties suggested referring to regional balance in 
allocating funds. CANADA, supported by the EC, suggested a 
reference to future activities, and to trust funds under the World 
Meteorological Organization. The CZECH REPUBLIC urged parties to 
provide voluntary contributions, and pledged a contribution for 
2006. Parties agreed the US, the EC and Argentina would finalize 
the draft decision before forwarding it to the high-level segment.

CFC PRODUCTION BY NON-ARTICLE 5 PARTIES: CANADA introduced its 
draft decision to minimize CFC production in non-Article 5 parties 
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.8) intended to supply the basic domestic 
needs of Article 5 parties. He said the draft decision: proposes 
to set up a prior informed consent provision for CFC trade under 
the basic domestic needs provision; urges non-Article 5 parties to 
phase out CFC production as soon as feasible; and suggests 
consideration of an adjustment to accelerate the CFC phase-out 
schedule to meet the basic needs of Article 5 parties at MOP-18. 
The EC said it had implemented measures to reduce CFC production 
and, with the US, expressed its intention to discuss the proposed 
adjustment further. MEXICO and MAURITIUS supported the proposal. 
The ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY highlighted the excessive 
supply of CFCs in some non-Article 5 countries, and urged such 
parties to accelerate the phase-out of CFC production. The EC and 
CANADA agreed to work on the draft decision.

METHYL-BROMIDE-RELATED ISSUES: Coordination with the International 
Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat: Colombia, for 
GRULAC, summarized the draft decision on coordination on 
quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) uses of methyl bromide, 
particularly uses under standard 15 of the International Standards 
for Phytosanitary Measures (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.12). UGANDA noted 
its support for the proposal and the difficulty of using the 
accepted alternative in Article 5 countries. NEW ZEALAND 
encouraged coordination with the Food and Agriculture Organization 
and, with AUSTRALIA and the US, suggested that the proposal better 
account for ongoing work regarding standard 15 and under the QPS 
Task Force. The US cautioned against imposing TEAP's views on the 
IPPC. After informal consultation, BRAZIL presented a revised 
draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.12/Rev.1) and delegates agreed 
to forward it to the high-level segment. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND DESTRUCTION OF ODS: Colombia, for GRULAC, 
introduced a draft decision on technical and financial 
implications of the environmentally sound destruction of ODS 
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.13), which requests TEAP to prepare terms 
of reference for conducting case studies on the replacement of 
CFC-containing refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. 
Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level 
segment. 

ILLEGAL TRADE IN ODS: The EC introduced the revised draft decision 
on preventing illegal trade in controlled ODS, which contains an 
appendix with terms of reference for a feasibility study on the 
matter (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.7/Rev.1). He highlighted, inter alia, 
two paragraphs in the appendix, including the study's financial 
implications, which remain in brackets. The ENVIRONMENTAL 
INVESTIGATION AGENCY said it had documented "shocking" smuggling 
operations, and urged parties to prioritize ODS smuggling control. 
CHINA expressed its commitment to combating illegal trade. NEW 
ZEALAND suggested the draft decision focus on giving technology 
and support to countries where illegal trade is occurring. The EC, 
Canada and others engaged in informal consultations to finalize 
the draft decision, and proposed a number of amendments, while 
noting the financing issue remains unresolved.

MEMBERSHIP OF PROTOCOL BODIES FOR 2006: Co-Chairs of the Technical 
Options Committees: Co-Chair Land presented updated draft decision 
XVII/BB (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3), noting Ian Rae 
(Australia) and Masaaki Yamabe (Japan) as Co-Chairs for the 
Chemicals Technical Options Committee, and Dave Catchpole (UK) and 
Dan Verdonick (US) for the Halons Technical Options Committee. He 
said Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Co-Chairs are yet 
to be confirmed.

Membership of the Implementation Committee: Co-Chair Land 
presented updated draft decision XVII/CC (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3 and 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3), with the additional proposed members being New 
Zealand, Lebanon, Poland, Nigeria and Argentina. He noted ongoing 
consultations over the positions of President and Vice-President.

Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund: 
Co-Chair Land presented updated draft decision XVII/DD 
(UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3), with additional 
proposed members being Syria, India, Zambia, New Guinea, Mali, 
Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Italy, Japan, Sweden, the US and the 
Czech Republic. NIGERIA noted ongoing consultations in the African 
Group on additional members.

Co-Chairs of OEWG: Co-Chair Land presented updated draft decision 
XVII/EE (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3), noting he and 
Nadzri Yahaya (Malaysia) have been selected as Co-Chairs for 2006.

OTHER MATTERS: The EC introduced a submission on behalf of Cyprus 
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.17) requesting the reclassification of Cyprus 
as a non-Article 5 party. Plenary agreed to forward the request to 
the high-level segment.

CONTACT GROUPS

BUDGETARY ISSUES: On the Convention budget, participants debated 
possible drawdowns from the Convention trust fund for 2006-2008, 
and asked the Secretariat to provide scenarios to assist 
discussions. On the Protocol budget, participants considered 
options for reducing the operating cash reserve and increasing 
drawdowns from the Protocol Trust Fund (UNEP.OzL.Pro.17/5). 
Participants asked the Secretariat to analyze the impacts of such 
reductions and to prepare scenarios regarding parties' 
contributions. One participant suggested reducing funds for travel 
costs, and another proposed financing the ODS tracking system 
study and an IPCC/TEAP workshop through voluntary contributions. 
The contact group will reconvene Thursday morning.

REPLENISHMENT OF THE MULTILATERAL FUND: Participants agreed to 
TEAP's estimate of funding requirements for categories of project 
preparation costs and other funding requirements. On new 
requirements, discussion focused on demonstration projects on ODS 
destruction. A number of non-Article 5 participants acknowledged 
the importance of destruction, but argued that funding it was not 
appropriate, as compliance with the Protocol does not require 
destruction, while Article 5 participants said significantly more 
funding was needed. They also argued for funding HCFC projects, 
while non-Article 5 participants said this was premature. On 
non-investment projects, non-Article 5 participants suggested 
TEAP's estimates were high, particularly for institutional 
strengthening, while Article 5 participants argued for additional 
funding for capacity building. Disagreements remained on 
additional project funding for process agents and a contingency 
proposed by Article 5 participants for unforeseen projects. The 
contact group will reconvene on Thursday.

METHYL BROMIDE: Considering the proposed texts on critical-use 
nominations (CUNs), participants agreed to request the use of 
stocks where available for research and development, and to 
bracket annexes with critical-use exemption (CUE) quantities, as 
amended, pending verification of the calculations and bilateral 
discussions on stocks and pre-plant use under the QPS exemption. 
Participants paid particular attention to language on the 
reporting of domestic allocation of CUEs, requests to use emission 
minimization techniques, and reporting amounts authorized and 
used. Participants turned down a proposal asking TEAP to review 
national management strategies (NMSs), which received support from 
participants, and agreed to language asking nominating parties to 
ensure their NMSs follow the requirements of Decision Ex.I/4 for 
phase-out of critical uses. Participants agreed not to seek 
adoption of the CUN Handbook by the MOP and one non-Article 5 
participant expressed concern regarding standard presumptions. 
They agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level 
segment in brackets, pending bilateral consultation.

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES ON CTCs and CFC MDIs IN ARTICLE 5 PARTIES: On 
some uses of ODS in Article 5 parties that would fall under 
essential-use exemptions in non-Article 5 parties, participants 
agreed the needs expressed in the two proposals were valid. They 
also agreed to add language to GRULAC's proposal 
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.16), which defers consideration of compliance 
under CTC control measures and ensures use is consistent with 
essential-use criteria. Regarding Bangladesh's proposal on CFC 
MDIs in 2007-2009 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.15), some participants 
expressed concern about language requesting TEAP to formally make 
a finding on technology transfer and also with requesting parties 
to defer consideration of compliance on this issue at this time. A 
participant underscored the need for certainty from the MOP to 
allow for domestic licensing of imports. The group decided to work 
on text requesting MOP-18 to consider the issue and requesting the 
Multilateral Fund Executive Committee and TEAP to consider a 
longer-term solution.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Wednesday ended with some issues still on the agenda of the 
preparatory segment, although participants appeared confident 
these will be resolved by the close of the meeting. Some delegates 
seemed keen to address the most difficult issues, including 
stockpiles, CUNs and budgetary matters, bilaterally and informally 
to avoid protracted plenary discussions and the impasses that led 
to the recent extraordinary MOPs. At this stage, many see signs 
that an extraordinary MOP will be averted, with bilateral and 
informal consultations continuing.





This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (c) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is 
written and edited by Karen Alvarenga, Ph.D., Ingrid Barnsley, 
Paula Barrios, Amber Moreen, and Noelle Eckley Selin. The Digital 
Editor is Leila Mead. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is 
Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The Sustaining 
Donors of the Bulletin are the Government of the United States of 
America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans and 
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the 
Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Swiss Agency for 
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom 
(through the Department for International Development - DFID), the 
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Germany 
(through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the 
German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ), the 
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Commission 
(DG-ENV), and the Italian Ministry of Environment. General Support 
for the Bulletin during 2005 is provided by the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia, the 
Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment 
and Water Management, the Ministry of Sustainable Development and 
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of 
Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, the 
Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 
Finland, Swan International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment 
(through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES) 
and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through 
the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute - 
GISPRI). Funding for translation of the Earth Negotiations 
Bulletin into French has been provided by the International 
Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and the French Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs. Funding for the translation of the Earth 
Negotiations Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by the 
Ministry of Environment of Spain. The opinions expressed in the 
Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not 
necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts 
from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial 
publications with appropriate academic citation. For information 
on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, 
contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA. 
The ENB Team at MOP-17 can be contacted by e-mail at 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

---
You are currently subscribed to enb as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subscribe to IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists for 
environment and sustainable development policy professionals at 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm

Reply via email to