ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS Consumption of Ozone-Depleting Substances UNECE Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia

1
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORSConsumption of
Ozone-Depleting SubstancesUNECE Joint Task
Force on Environmental Indicators Eastern
Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia
South-Eastern EuropeGeneva, 11-13 July 2011

• Ozone Secretariat
• Sophia Mylona
• Monitoring and Compliance Officer

2
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

3
1985 VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
OZONE LAYERMontreal 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

4
Development of Parties Ratification Status
5
Institutional Framework under the Montreal
ProtocolInnovative features Assessment Panels,
Non-Compliance Mechanism and Financial Mechanism
6
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

7
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 UNEPs Regional Offices)

8
Compliance Assistance Programme - Regional
Networks
9
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

10
Non-Article 5 Party Control Measures 2010-2030
(Consumption)
Substance Baseline 2010 2015 2020 2030
CFCs, Halons 1986 100
Other CFCs, Carbon tetrachloride, Methyl chloroform 1989 100
HCFCs 1989 75 90 99.5 100
HBFC None 100
BCM None 100
Methyl Bromide 1991 100
1989 HCFC Consumption 2.8 CFC Consumption
11
Article 5 Party Control Measures 2010-2040
(Consumption)
Substance Baseline 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040
CFC, Halons Average of 1995-1997 100
Other CFCs, Carbon tetrachloride Average of 1998-2000 100
Methyl chloroform Average of 1998-2000 70 100
HCFCs Average of 2009-2010 10 35 67.5 100 100
HBFC, BCM None 100
Methyl Bromide Average of 1995-1998 20 100
Allowing for servicing an annual average of
2.5 during 2030-40
12
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

13
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 Secretariats website
  http//ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/ozone_data_tools
  .php

14
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 Secretariats web site
• http//ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/ozone_data_tools
  _access.php

15
Annual data reporting Parties reporting data
within 6 and 9 months
16
Global ODS Consumption97.4 reduction in all
ODS by all Parties by 2009
17
Consumption of ODS in the EECCA/SEE Region98.6
of the Parties baseline phased out by 2009
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
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

21
Reporting procedurecont

• 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

22
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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
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

27
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/re-exporti
  ng Party to the importing Party concerned

28
Import/Export data discrepancies in ECA/CEIT
countries- 2009(Aggregated amounts in MT)
Importing country Imported ODS (New) Exported ODS (New) Exporting country
Albania 97.37 36.5 China, EU, Turkey
Armenia 141.9    
Azerbaijan 41.3    
Belarus 179.36 1.9 A non-A5 Party
Bosnia Herzegovina 82.76 45.8 Croatia, EU
Croatia 168.0185 86.5 China, EU, India
Georgia 83.2    
Kazakhstan 1179.4 170.9 China, EU, Rep. of Korea, Russian Fed.
Kyrgyzstan 75.66    
Montenegro 17.14 15.7 India
29
Import Export data discrepancies in 2009cont
(Aggregated amounts in MT)
Importing country Imported ODS (New) Exported ODS (New) Exporting country
Republic of Moldova 21.1 0.7 A non-A5 Party
Russian Federation 9072.8 10377.6 USA, EU, China, India
Serbia 181.7 49.8 USA, EU, China, Croatia
Tajikistan 48.8    
The FYR of Macedonia 57.3 45.7 Croatia, India, Turkey
Turkey 9072.9 8068.7 China, EU, India, Rep. of Korea
Turkmenistan 139.2    
Ukraine 1015.6 1742.8 China, EU
Uzbekistan 32.6 15.7 Turkey
30
Import Export data discrepancies cont
(Aggregated amounts of new and recovered
substances in MT)
ECA CEIT Total
Reported imports 10139.2 11893.1 22032.3
Discrepancies (MT) 1861.2 5097.0 6958.3
Discrepancies/trade volume () 18 43 32
31
Import Export data discrepancies cont (per
substance in MT)
Substance Discrepancy (MT) Discrepancy ()
CFC 348.4 5
HCFC 6453.0 93
Methyl bromide 142.2 2
Methyl chloroform 0.0 0
Halons 14.1 0
Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 0
32
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

33
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 Protocols Implementation Committee at its
  46th meeting in Montreal, 7-8 August 2011

34
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)

35
Concluding remarkscont.

• Parties are advised to review and strengthen
  their national data tracking procedures, to
  ensure proper operation of their licensing
  systems and to cross-check their data with the
  sources of their imports
• National representatives reporting to UNECE on
  ODS consumption as environmental indicators
  should co-operate 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

36
Thank you!sophia.mylona_at_unep.orghttp//ozone
.unep.org http//unep.ch/ozone