Transcript ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS Consumption of Ozone-Depleting Substances UNECE Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia & South-Eastern Europe Geneva, 11-13 July.

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Consumption of
Ozone-Depleting Substances
UNECE Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators
Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia & South-Eastern Europe
Geneva, 11-13 July 2011
Ozone Secretariat
Sophia Mylona
Monitoring and Compliance Officer
Presentation outline
 Background information on the Montreal Protocol
 Key features, Institutional framework
 Key obligations
 Data reporting
 Status of reporting
 Reporting procedures
 Issues related to the quality of reported data
 Major challenges
 Concluding remarks
1985 VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER
Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (ODS)

Adopted 16 September 1987

196 Parties – Universal Ratification

Contains mandatory timetables for the phase out of ODS
- Original Protocol: 5 CFCs & 3 halons;
- Current: 96 ODS

Amended 4 times (1990, 1992, 1997, 1999)

Adjusted 6 times (1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2007)
As Parties ratify the various Amendments they assume
new data reporting responsibilities
No. of Parties
Development of Parties’ Ratification Status
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Vienna Convention (196)
Montreal Protocol (196)
London Amendment (196)
Copenhagen Amendment (194)
Montreal Amendment (184)
Beijing Amendment (168)
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Year
Institutional Framework under the Montreal Protocol
Innovative features: Assessment Panels,
Non-Compliance Mechanism and Financial Mechanism
Meeting of
the Parties
Ozone
Secretariat
UNEP
Implementation
Committee
ExCom/
Multilateral
Fund
Multilateral
Fund
Secretariat
UNEP/DTIE
Bureau of
the Meeting
of Parties
UNDP
Scientific
UNIDO
Assessment
Panels
Other MEAs
Environmental
Effects
Technology
&
Economics
World Bank
Party classification under the Montreal Protocol
EECCA/SEE Region

Developing countries (Article 5 Parties)
- eligible for MLF funding
Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro,
Republic of Moldova, Serbia,
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan

Developed countries (non-Article 5 Parties)
- CEIT, funded by Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation,
Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan
Regional Networks of National Ozone Units (NOUs)

Set up under the Multilateral Fund to build the National Ozone
Officers’ (NOOs) skills to implement and manage national ODS
phase-out activities

Networking activities
- Annual and follow-up workshops
- Regular communication between UNEP and NOOs
- Thematic and contact group meetings
- Country-to-country cooperation

Results: Improved data reporting, policy making,
Refrigerant Management plans and development of peer
pressure among ODS Officers to take early steps to implement
the Protocol
Key players: NOOs, Implementing Agencies,
Regional Coordinators (based at UNEP’s Regional Offices)
Compliance Assistance Programme - Regional Networks
Key Obligations under the Montreal Protocol

Control Measures: phase out schedules
Common but differentiated approach: Developing
countries given 10 years’ grace period

Regulatory measures:
- Establishment of Licensing systems
- Trade controls

Data Reporting
- Imports, Exports, Production, Destruction of ODS,
Trade with non-Parties
- Exempted uses (if relevant): Feedstocks, Essential uses,
Critical or Quarantine and Preshipment applications of
methyl bromide, Emergency uses
Non-Article 5 Party Control Measures 2010-2030
(Consumption)
Substance
Baseline
2010
CFCs, Halons
1986
100%
Other CFCs,
Carbon tetrachloride,
Methyl chloroform
1989
100%
HCFCs
1989*
75%
HBFC
None
100%
BCM
None
100%
Methyl Bromide
1991
100%
* 1989 HCFC Consumption + 2.8 CFC Consumption
2015
2020
2030
90%
99.5%
100%
Article 5 Party Control Measures 2010-2040
(Consumption)
Substance
CFC,
Halons
Baseline
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2040
35%
67.5% 100%* 100%
Average of 100%
1995-1997
Other CFCs, Average of
1998-2000 100%
Carbon
tetrachloride
Methyl
chloroform
Average of
1998-2000
HCFCs
Average of
2009-2010
HBFC, BCM
Methyl
Bromide
70%
100%
10%
None
100%
Average of
1995-1998
20%
100%
* Allowing for servicing an annual average of 2.5% during 2030-40
Regulatory measures: Licensing systems

Within 6 months of ratifying the 1997 Montreal
Amendment Parties must establish and implement a
system for licensing the import and export of all new,
used, recycled and reclaimed ODS

All parties in the EECCA/SEE region have reported to
the Secretariat that they have established and operate
licensing systems
However, more than cursory compliance is essential to
ensure ODS phase-out – The efficiency of operation and
enforcement of licensing systems remains a challenge
Data Reporting obligations
(Article 7)
 Each Party must report its ODS data annualy
 Reported data must include (as appropriate):
Imports, Exports, Production, Destruction of ODS,
Trade with non-Parties
Exempted uses (if relevant): Feedstocks,
Essential uses, Critical or Quarantine and
Preshipment applications of methyl bromide,
Emergency uses
 Data reporting forms and reporting instructions are
available at the Ozone Secretariat’s website
http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/ozone_data_tools.php
Data reporting….cont
Annual Data Reporting:
 Due 30 September each year, starting the year
the Protocol or relevant Amendment enters into
force for the Party
 Parties are encouraged to report by 30 June
each year (decision XV/17)
All reported (aggregated) figures to date can be
accessed through the Secretariat’s web site:
http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/ozone_data_tools_access.php
Annual data reporting
Year
2009
2010
2007
2008
2005
2006
2003
2004
2001
2002
30-Sep
1999
2000
30-Jun
1997
1998
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1995
1996
Number of Parties
Parties reporting data within 6 and 9 months
Global ODS Consumption
1,800,000
1,600,000
Non-Article 5
Article 5
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Consumption (ODP tonnes)
97.4 % reduction in all ODS by all Parties by 2009
Year
Consumption of ODS in the EECCA/SEE Region
140,000
Methyl Bromide
BCM
120,000
HBFCs
HCFCs
100,000
Methyl Chloroform
80,000
CCL4
Other Fully Halogenated CFCs
60,000
Halons
CFCs
40,000
20,000
Year
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
1990
Consumption (ODP tonnes)
98.6% of the Parties’ baseline phased out by 2009
Reporting procedure

Parties report their ODS data to the Ozone Secretariat
through their designated Authorities which act as focal
points

The Secretariat reviews the submitted data to detect any
apparent discrepancies and check compliance with the
Protocol provisions

Cases of Potential Non-Compliance are subject to the
established Non-Compliance Procedure and are
eventually brought to the attention of the Implementation
Committee for its consideration
However,
The Ozone Secretariat does not have the mandate to
question/assess the quality of reported data
Reporting procedure…cont

Countries that receive financial assistance from
the MLF/GEF to phase out their ODS must
report their sectoral data to those institutions

Those reports are evaluated by the MLF/GEF
Are you aware of any such activities in your country?
Close interaction with your National Ozone Officers is
important in this regard
Definition of ODS Consumption under the Protocol

Annual controlled consumption is defined as:
“Consumption” = “Production” + Import – Export
where:
“Production” = Production – Destruction – Feedstock use
With the exemption of the Russian Federation which is an
ODS producer and exporter, all other countries in the region
are predominantly ODS importers; Thus, data quality depends
primarily on the reliability of imported data
Reliability of reported data - Major challenges
 National ODS legislation may not be as comprehensive as it
should or may not be implemented effectively
 National licensing systems for ODS import/export may not be
operating or enforced effectively, resulting to misreporting and
possibly illegal trade
 Countries with ODS destruction facilities may not be reporting
the ODS quantities destroyed
 Co-operation between all relevant authorities and stakeholders
at the national level or regional/global level (in cases involving
international trade) may be inadequate or even absent
Participation of countries in the informal Prior Consent (iPIC)
Procedure has prevented several cases of illegal trade in ODS
Informal Prior Informed Procedure (iPIC) on ODS Trade
 A voluntary and informal mechanism of information exchange
on intended trade between the authorities in importing and
exporting countries which are responsible for issuing ODS
trade licenses (NOUs)
 Aims to assist member countries to implement licensing
systems effectively so that they do not exceed their maximum
allowable consumption levels under the Protocol
 Key elements:
 Exporting countries check the copy of import licenses
voluntarily before issuing export licenses
 Importing countries inform exporting countries of their
registered importers and the ODS quantities allocated to
them for a specific year
Informal Prior Informed Procedure (iPIC) on ODS Trade
 Established in 2005/2006 in South East Asia on a pilot basis
involving NOUs and their customs counterparts
 In 2008 6 countries of the ECA Ozone Network (Armenia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan) and one country from Latin America (Colombia)
joined the iPIC procedure
 In the first 2 months of 2009, 6 more countries from Latin
America (Bahamas, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia and
Trinidad & Tobago) joined in
 The European Union fully participates in the iPIC since 2007
 Network countries have proposed that major exporting
countries such as China, India and the Republic of Korea work
closely with importing countries in the region
The ECA Ozone Network

Includes 12 Article 5 countries from the Balkan, Caucasus and
Central Asia region

Trade partners including the EU, China and Russia are involved
in a project “ECA enforcement network of Customs &
Enforcement Officers” and cooperate closely on the prevention
of illegal ODS trade

During the period 2007-2009, more than 1000 metric tonnes of
allegedly recycled CFCs were illegally traded and investigations
have been initiated. Such illegal trade could have been
prevented through simple phone calls or email exchanges
between importing and exporting countries applying the iPIC
procedure
Decision XVII/16 (Dakar, 2005)
Preventing illegal trade in controlled
ozone-depleting substances
“….
4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to revise the reporting
format resulting from decision VII/9 to cover exports (including
re-exports) of all controlled ozone-depleting substances,
including mixtures containing them, and to urge the Parties to
implement the revised reporting format expeditiously. The
Ozone Secretariat is also requested to report back
aggregated information related to the controlled
substance in question received from the exporting/reexporting Party to the importing Party concerned;
……”
Import/Export data discrepancies in ECA/CEIT countries- 2009
(Aggregated amounts in MT)
Importing country
Imported ODS
(New)
Albania
97.37
Armenia
141.9
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Croatia
Georgia
Exported ODS Exporting country
(New)
36.5 China, EU, Turkey
41.3
179.36
82.76
168.0185
1.9 A non-A5 Party
45.8 Croatia, EU
86.5 China, EU, India
83.2
Kazakhstan
1179.4
Kyrgyzstan
75.66
Montenegro
17.14
China, EU,
170.9 Rep. of Korea,
Russian Fed.
15.7 India
Import – Export data discrepancies in 2009…cont
(Aggregated amounts in MT)
Importing country
Republic of Moldova
Russian Federation
Serbia
Imported ODS Exported ODS Exporting country
(New)
(New)
21.1
9072.8
181.7
Tajikistan
48.8
The FYR of
Macedonia
57.3
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
9072.9
0.7 A non-A5 Party
10377.6 USA, EU, China, India
49.8 USA, EU, China,
Croatia
45.7 Croatia, India, Turkey
8068.7 China, EU, India,
Rep. of Korea
139.2
1015.6
32.6
1742.8 China, EU
15.7 Turkey
Import – Export data discrepancies …cont
(Aggregated amounts of new and recovered substances in MT)
Reported imports
Discrepancies (MT)
Discrepancies/trade
volume (%)
ECA
CEIT
10139.2
11893.1
22032.3
1861.2
5097.0
6958.3
18%
43%
Total
32%
Import – Export data discrepancies …cont
(per substance in MT)
Substance
CFC
HCFC
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloroform
Halons
Carbon tetrachloride
Discrepancy
(MT)
Discrepancy
(%)
348.4
5%
6453.0
93%
142.2
2%
0.0
0%
14.1
0%
0.5
0%
Several reasons for detected discrepancies
 Imports greater that Exports
- Some exporting countries may not be reporting their export
destinations
- Exporting countries may be underestimating their exports
- Importing countries may be overestimating their imports
 Exports higher than Imports
- Exporting countries may be overestimating their exports
- Importing countries may be underestimating their imports –
this case may place the importing country into non-compliance
under the Protocol
Whatever the reason, understanding the cause(s) of such
discrepancies and taking measures to prevent them from
reoccurring results in improving implementation of national
licensing systems and combating illegal trade
Challenges related to HCFCs
 HCFCs to be phased-out by 2030 in the developed/CEIT
countries and by 2040 in the developing countries
 The MLF is currently assisting several developing countries to
prepare their HCFC Management Plans (HPMPs) including
checking the reliability of national ODS inventories – This has
resulted in several developing countries requesting revision of
their ODS consumption figures for one or several years,
including those for 2009 (baseline year)
 From the countries in the EECCA/SEE region, Tajikistan has
requested revision of its HCFC baseline year (1989) so far
 Revisions of baseline data will be considered by the Protocol’s
Implementation Committee at its 46th meeting in Montreal, 7-8
August 2011
Concluding remarks
 For the countries in the EECCA/SEE Region
consumption of ODS depends greatly on imported
(and to a lesser extent) exported figures
 Good quality of import/export data requires efficiently
enforced licensing systems and excellent coordination
of relevant authorities at the national and international
level, including participation in the iPIC Procedure
 For producing countries, reliable consumption data
depend additionally on reporting of ODS destroyed
and/or used as feedstocks (if relevant)
Concluding remarks…cont.
 Parties are advised to review and strengthen their
national data tracking procedures, to ensure proper
operation of their licensing systems and to crosscheck their data with the sources of their imports
 National representatives reporting to UNECE on ODS
consumption as environmental indicators should cooperate closely with their countries’ National Ozone
Officers to get a better understanding of the nature of
ODS data reported under the Montreal Protocol
(including any activities undertaken by NOOs to
improve data quality and any phase-out projects those
countries may have with the MLF/GEF) and resolve
any inconsistencies involved
Thank you!
[email protected]
http://ozone.unep.org
http://unep.ch/ozone