Although MOP 22 was not able to make progress on low-global warming potential alternatives, or ODS destruction, many delegates identified these issues as key to the long-term future of the Protocol, and their proponents remained committed to addressing HFCs through the Montreal Protocol in the future.
12 November 2010: The 22nd session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP 22) to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which took place in Bangkok, Thailand from 8-12 November 2010, adopted 16 substantive and several procedural decisions, including on the terms of reference (ToR) for the evaluation of the financial mechanism. A proposal from the Federated States of Micronesia to amend the Protocol to address Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), supported by the group of Pacific island countries, was not taken up by the Meeting.
During the meeting, participants considered two draft decisions on amendments to the Montreal Protocol to address HFCs, presented by the US on behalf of Canada and Mexico (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/5), and the Federated States of Micronesia (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/6). On behalf of Canada and Mexico, the US also introduced a draft decision on the phase-out of HFC-23 as a by-product of Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 (HCFC-22) (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/3, XXII/[M]). General support for the proposals was expressed by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kenya, the Philippines, and Tuvalu on behalf of Pacific island countries.
Armenia, Australia, Cameroon, Gabon, the EU, Indonesia, Japan and Switzerland supported discussing the proposals in a contact group, while Venezuela objected to the initiation of a contact group. Brazil, with China, called on parties to consider the proposals submitted in informal consultations only, as HFCs are already covered under the UNFCCC.
An informal group was established and met twice during the week to focus on the proposal by Brazil requesting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to assess the quantities and types of high-global warming potential (GWP) substances that are likely to be phased in as alternatives to HCFCs, as well as to identify the affected sectors and the extent to which the funding guidelines on HCFCs would allow for the selection and financing of low-GWP alternatives to HCFCs by Article 5 parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.22/CRP.13). Aside from the US’ brief introduction of its amendment proposal, the informal contact group did not initiate specific discussion on this matter, as several parties objected to discussing this, and no decision was adopted by the MOP.
Although MOP 22 was not able to make progress on low-global warming potential alternatives, or destruction of ozone-depleting substances (ODS), many delegates identified these issues as key to the long-term future of the Protocol, and their proponents remained committed to addressing HFCs through the Montreal Protocol in the future.
unep logo OR this ENB photo: http://enb.iisd.org/ozone/mop22/images/IMG_1679.jpg
