Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Albania
1. to note that Albania ratified the Montreal Protocol on 8 October 1999. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol but has not had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee. However, the Executive Committee has approved $215,060 from the Multilateral Fund to facilitate compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Albania’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 41 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 62 and 69 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively, and consumption of 58 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Albania was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Albania submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Albania may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Albania with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Albania is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Albania should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Albania, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV18).
Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Argentina
1. to note that Argentina ratified the Montreal Protocol on 18 September 1990, the London Amendment on 4 December 1992, the Copenhagen Amendment on 20 April 1995, and the Montreal Amendment on 15 February 2001. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and its country programme was approved by the Executive Committee in 1994. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $43,287,750 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Argentina’s production baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 2,745.3 ODP tonnes. Argentina reported production of 3,101 and 3,027 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999 and 2000 respectively. Argentina responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request for data regarding the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. Argentina reported production of 3,065 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I controlled substances for the production freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a consequence, for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Argentina was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Argentina submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Argentina may wish to consider including in its plan actions to establish production quotas that will freeze production at baseline levels and support the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Argentina with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Argentina is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Argentina should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Argentina should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Argentina, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/13/10, Decision XIII/21).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Armenia
1. to note that Armenia has reported data on consumption of substances in Annex A to the Montreal Protocol in 2000 above control levels as provided in Article 2 of the Protocol, and therefore that Armenia is in non-compliance with the control measures under Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol in 2000;
2. to note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/18 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, Armenia was requested to ratify the London Amendment as a precondition for Global Environment Facility (GEF) funding, and that this has not occurred;
3. to further note that since Armenia has applied for reclassification as a developing country operating under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, the Implementation Committee should review the situation of Armenia after this matter is resolved.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/31).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bahamas
1. to note that Bahamas ratified the Montreal Protocol, the London Amendment and the Copenhagen Amendment on 4 May 1993. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1996. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $658,487 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Bahamas’ baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 65 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 66 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and consumption of 87 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Bahamas was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Bahamas submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Bahamas may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Bahamas with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Bahamas is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Bahamas should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Bahamas, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/19).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bangladesh
1. to note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/16 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, the Implementation Committee requested the Secretariat to write to Bangladesh since it had reported data on CFC consumption for either the year 1999 and/or 2000 that was above its baseline, and was therefore in a state of potential non-compliance;
2. to further note that Bangladesh’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 580 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 805 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000, and consumption of 740 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Bangladesh was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to note, however, that the information provided to the Implementation Committee by both Bangladesh and UNDP shows that Bangladesh is expected to return to compliance in the control period 1 July 2001-31 December 2002;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Bangladesh with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Bangladesh is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Bangladesh should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Bangladesh should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Bangladesh, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/29).
Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Belize
1. to note that Belize ratified the Montreal Protocol, London Amendment, and Copenhagen Amendment on 9 January 1998. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1999. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $327,841 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Belize’s consumption baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 16 ODP tonnes. Belize reported consumption of 25 and 9 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999 and 2000 respectively. Belize responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request for data for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. Belize reported consumption of 20 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I controlled substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a consequence, for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Belize was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Belize submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Belize may wish to consider including in its plan actions to establish import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, to establish a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and to put in place policy and regulatory instruments that ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Belize with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Belize is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Belize should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Belize should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Belize, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/13/10, Decision XIII/22).
Subsequently, the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:
1. to note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/22 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, Belize was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance;
2. Belize’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 24.4 ODP-tonnes, having been modified in accordance with Decision XIV/27. It reported consumption of 16 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 28 ODP-tonnes in 2001, and consumption of 40 ODP-tonnes for the control period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, placing Belize clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to express concern about Belize’s non-compliance but to note that it has submitted a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. It is with that understanding that the Parties note, after reviewing the plan of action submitted by Belize, that Belize specifically commits itself:
(a) to reduce CFC consumption from the current level of 28 ODP tonnes in 2001 as follows:
(i) to 24.4 ODP tonnes in 2003;
(ii) to 20 ODP tonnes in 2004;
(iii) to 12.2 ODP tonnes in 2005;
(iv) to 10 ODP tonnes in 2006;
(v) to 3.66 ODP tonnes in 2007; and
(vi) to phase out CFC consumption by 1 January 2008 as provided under the Montreal Protocol save for essential uses that might be authorized by the Parties;
(b) to establish, by 1 January 2003, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS;
(c) to ban, by 1 January 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;
4. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Belize to return to compliance by 2003. In this regard, the Parties urge Belize to work with relevant Implementing Agencies to phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A Group I;
7. to closely monitor the progress of Belize with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Belize is working towards and meeting the specific commitments noted above in paragraph 3, Belize should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Belize should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Belize, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/33).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bolivia
8. to note that Bolivia ratified the Montreal Protocol, the London Amendment and the Copenhagen Amendment on 3 October 1994, and the Montreal Amendment on 12 April 1999. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1995. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $1,428,767 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
9. Bolivia’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 76 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 79 and 77 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively, and consumption of 78 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Bolivia was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Bolivia submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Bolivia may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
1. to closely monitor the progress of Bolivia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Bolivia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Bolivia should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Bolivia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Bolivia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/20).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Bosnia and Herzegovina
1. to note that Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the Montreal Protocol on 6 March 1992. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1999. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $1,308,472 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 24 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 176 and 200 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively. As a consequence, Bosnia and Herzegovina was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Bosnia and Herzegovina submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Bosnia and Herzegovina may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Bosnia and Herzegovina is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/21).
Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Cameroon
1. to note that Cameroon ratified the Montreal Protocol on 30 August 1989, the London Amendment on 8 June 1992, and the Copenhagen Amendment on 25 June 1996. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $5,640,174 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Cameroon’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 256.9 ODP tonnes. Cameroon reported consumption of 362 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999. Cameroon responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request for data for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. Cameroon reported consumption of 368.7 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I controlled substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a consequence, for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Cameroon was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Cameroon submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Cameroon may wish to consider including in its plan actions to establish import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, to establish a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and to put in place policy and regulatory instruments that ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Cameroon with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Cameroon is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Cameroon should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Cameroon should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Cameroon, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/13/10, Decision XIII/23).
Subsequently, the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:
1. to note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/23 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, Cameroon was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance;
2. to further note that Cameroon’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 257 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 369 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 364 ODP-tonnes in 2001, placing Cameroon clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to note with regret that Cameroon has not fulfilled the requirements of Decision XIII/23 and to request that it should provide a plan of action to the Secretariat as soon as possible, and in time for it to be considered by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting in July 2003, in order for the Committee to monitor its progress towards compliance;
4. to further request the United Nations Environment Programme to submit to the Implementation Committee a progress report on implementation of its policy and technical assistance project currently under way in Cameroon, and for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization to submit to the Implementation Committee confirmation of the completion of its two foam projects, which might have significantly reduced consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A Group I;
5. to stress to the Government of Cameroon its obligations under the Montreal Protocol to phase out the consumption of ozone-depleting substances, and the accompanying need for it to establish and maintain an effective governmental policy and institutional framework for the purposes of implementing and monitoring the national phase-out strategy;
6. to closely monitor the progress of Cameroon with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Cameroon is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Cameroon should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Cameroon should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Cameroon, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/32).
Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ethiopia
1. to note that Ethiopia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 11 October 1994 and has not ratified the London and Copenhagen Amendments. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1996. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $330,844 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Ethiopia’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 33.8 ODP tonnes. Ethiopia reported consumption of 39 and 39 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999 and 2000 respectively. Ethiopia responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request for data for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. Ethiopia reported consumption of 39.2 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a consequence, for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Ethiopia was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Ethiopia submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Ethiopia may wish to consider including in its plan actions to establish import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, to establish a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and to put in place policy and regulatory instruments that ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
2. to closely monitor the progress of Ethiopia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Ethiopia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Ethiopia should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Ethiopia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Ethiopia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/13/10, Decision XIII/24).
Subsequently, the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:
1. to note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/24 of the 13th Meeting of the Parties, Ethiopia was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance;
2. Ethiopia’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 34 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 39 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 35 ODP-tonnes for the control period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, placing Ethiopia clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to express concern about Ethiopia’s non-compliance but to note that it has submitted a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. It is with that understanding that the Parties note, after reviewing the plan of action submitted by Ethiopia, that Ethiopia specifically commits itself to reduce CFC consumption from the current level of 35 ODP tonnes in 2001 as follows:
(c) to 5 ODP tonnes in 2007; and
(d) to phase out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010 as required under the Montreal Protocol save for essential uses that might be authorized by the Parties;
4. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Ethiopia to return to compliance by 2003. In this regard, the Parties urge Ethiopia to work with relevant Implementing Agencies to phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A Group I;
5. to closely monitor the progress of Ethiopia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Ethiopia is working towards and meeting the specific commitments noted above in paragraph 3, Ethiopia should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Ethiopia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Ethiopia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/34).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
1. to note that Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ratified the Montreal Protocol on 11 July 1990 and the London Amendment on 12 July 2001. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 2000. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $2,794,053 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 717 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 985 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 985 ODP-tonnes in 2001, placing Libyan Arab Jamahiriya clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Libyan Arab Jamahiriya submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/25).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Maldives
1. to note that Maldives ratified the Montreal Protocol on 16 May 1989, the London Amendment on 31 July 1991 and the Copenhagen Amendment and the Montreal Amendment on 27 September 2001. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $370,516 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Maldives’ baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 5 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 5 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 14 ODP-tonnes in 2001, placing Maldives clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Maldives submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Maldives may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Maldives with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Maldives is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Maldives should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Maldives should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Maldives, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/26).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Namibia
1. to note that Namibia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 20 September 1993 and the London Amendment on 6 November 1997. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1995. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $406,147 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Namibia’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 22 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 22 and 24 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively, and consumption of 23 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Namibia was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Namibia submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Namibia may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
3. to closely monitor the progress of Namibia with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Namibia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Namibia should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Namibia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Namibia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/22).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nepal
1. to note that Nepal ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 6 July 1994. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1998. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $432,137 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Nepal’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 27 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 94 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000, and consumption of 94 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Nepal was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Nepal submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Nepal may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Nepal with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Nepal is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Nepal should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Nepal should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Nepal, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/23).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Nigeria
1. to note that, in accordance with Decision XIII/16 of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Parties, the Implementation Committee requested the Secretariat to write to Nigeria since it had reported data on CFC consumption for either the year 1999 and/or 2000 that was above its baseline, and was therefore in a state of potential non-compliance;
2. Nigeria’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 3,650 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 4,095 ODP-tonnes in 2000 and 3,666 ODP-tonnes in 2001, placing Nigeria clearly in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to express concern about Nigeria’s non-compliance but to note that it has submitted a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. It is with that understanding that the Parties note, after reviewing the plan of action submitted by Nigeria, that Nigeria specifically commits itself:
(a) to reduce Annex A consumption from the current level of 3,666 ODP tonnes in 2001 as follows:
(i) to 3,400 ODP tonnes in 2003;
(ii) to 3,200 ODP tonnes in 2004;
(iii) to 1,800 ODP tonnes in 2005;
(iv) to 1,100 ODP tonnes for 2006;
(v) to 510 ODP tonnes in 2007;
(vi) to 300 ODP tonnes in 2008;
(vii) to 100 ODP tonnes in 2009; and
(viii)to phase out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010 as provided under the Montreal Protocol save for essential uses that might be authorized by the Parties;
(b) to report periodically on the operation of the system for licensing imports and exports of ODS as required for all Parties under Article 4 B paragraph 4 of the Montreal Protocol;
(c) to ban, by 1 January 2008, imports of ODS-using equipment;
4. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Nigeria to return to compliance by 2003. In this regard, the Parties urge Nigeria to work with relevant Implementing Agencies to phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A Group I;
5. to closely monitor the progress of Nigeria with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Nigeria is working towards and meeting the specific commitments noted above in paragraph 3, Nigeria should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Nigeria should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Nigeria, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/30).
Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Peru
1. to note that Peru ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 31 March 1993 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 7 June 1999. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1995. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $4,670,309 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Peru’s baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 289.5 ODP tonnes. Peru reported consumption of 296 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 1999. Peru responded to the Ozone Secretariat’s request for data for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. Peru reported consumption of 297.6 ODP tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. As a consequence, for the control period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, Peru was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Peru submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Peru may wish to consider including in its plan actions to establish import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, to establish a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and to put in place policy and regulatory instruments that ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Peru with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Peru is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Peru should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Peru should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Peru, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that importing Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/13/10, Decision XIII/25).
Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
1. to note that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ratified the Montreal Protocol, the London Amendment and the Copenhagen Amendment on 2 December 1996. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1998. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $152,889 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;
2. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ baseline for Annex A, Group I substances is 2 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 6 and 7 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances in 2000 and 2001 respectively, and consumption of 9 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, Group I substances for the consumption freeze control period of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000 to June 2001 control period, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;
3. to request that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines may wish to consider including in this plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ODS equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;
4. to closely monitor the progress of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. To the degree that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet these commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that might be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. However, through this decision, the Parties caution Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs (that is the subject of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.14/9, Decision XIV/24).