In the context of the Executive Committee agreement on strategic planning (Decision 33/32), the Executive Committee agreed (at its Thirty-fifth Meeting) that further funding must be predicated on a commitment by the country to achieve sustainable permanent aggregate reductions in consumption and production, as relevant. In implementing this provision, the Executive Committee believes that all Article 5 countries should be treated equally. In that regard, each Article 5 country should select one option from two options below for determining the starting point for implementation of its national aggregate consumption.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/35/67, Decision 35/57, para. 112(c)).
Provisos relating to Decision 35/57:
A. if an Article 5 country selects option 2, it should be with the understanding that the Executive Committee may agree in exceptional cases to adjust the resulting baseline at the first instance a project from a country is considered, to take into account the demonstrated non-representative nature of the last year’s data for reasons such as clearly demonstrated stockpiling in the specific 12-month period, and/or national economic difficulties in the specific 12-month period. In so considering, the Executive Committee shall not take into account illegal imports, as there should be agreement that firms that import illegally, or purchase illegal imports, should not benefit from Fund assistance. In any case, it must be perfectly clear that only the Montreal Protocol baseline will be used to determine compliance with the Montreal Protocol.
B. it is acknowledged that some future years’ reported consumption may go above or below the levels that result from the agreed calculation, but if consumption numbers go above the resulting levels, such increases in consumption would not be eligible for funding. It is further noted that the resulting numbers represent maximum residual ODS that the Fund will pay to reduce, and that existing Fund guidance related to eligibility of projects would be maintained in all respects.
C. it is noted that RMPs and methyl bromide projects lead to a specific commitment of levels of reductions in national aggregate consumption relative to Montreal Protocol obligations, and that halon banking projects often lead to commitment for a total national phase-out and ban on the import of halon. Those projects should continue to be handled on that basis.
D. institutional strengthening and non-investment activities, including UNEP activities and any country dialogues that may be approved, undeniably contribute to Article 5 reductions in the use of ODS, otherwise, there would be no need to fund these activities. That said, their direct ODS reduction impact has been notoriously difficult to quantify. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel historically suggested that for methyl bromide, non-investment activities may be five times more cost-effective than phase-out projects, yielding a cost-effectiveness of under US $4.25/kg. For the purposes of this endeavor, it has been agreed to take a much more conservative stance, and agreed that all future non-investment activities be given a value that is not many times more cost-effective than investment projects, which is at US $12.10/kg, which is one third as cost-effective as the average investment project approved under the Fund. This should be used as an interim figure until more research can be done on the issue.
1. while countries are still explicitly given the option of proceeding on a project by project or sector/national basis, it should be noted that in the case of broader plans such as production sector plans, RMPs, solvents sector plans, halon sector plans or national CFC phase-out plans, complicated issues such as selecting a starting point and ensuring national sustained reductions become less critical, as the agreements themselves embody a specific commitment to eliminate national aggregate consumption or production of the given substance on a specific schedule.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/35/67, Decision 35/57, para. 112 (c)).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/35/61 and 35/61/Corr.1).
The Thirty-sixth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:
(a) that proviso (D) of Decision 35/57 should not apply to low-volume consuming countries;
(b) that for all other countries the rate of US $12.10 per ODP kilogram should apply to CFC consumption and result in a reduction from the level established by the option selected by the country;
(c) to request the Secretariat to prepare a paper to enable the Executive Committee to consider the possibility of amending the rate of US $12.10 per ODP kilogram, by the 39th Meeting.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/36/36, Decision 36/7, para. 41).
With regard to the clarification sought by many Article 5 countries on the interpretation and consequences of Decision 35/57 in general, and whether RMP activities included in the business plans could be submitted as new terminal phase-out management plans if countries requested agencies to do so, the Executive Committee decided at its Thirty-sixth Meeting to return to the matter at its 37th Meeting.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/36/36, Decision 36/6, para. 40).
The Thirty-seventh Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:
(a) to take note with appreciation of the countries listed in Annex I of document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/37/64 as amended;
(b) to agree to the request of India to change its starting point data to a figure of 2317.2 ODP tonnes;
(c) for countries that had not made or confirmed their final selection of an option:
(i) to set a deadline for selection at eight weeks prior to the meeting at which the country concerned intended to submit a project for consideration by the Executive Committee;
(ii) automatically to apply Option 1 if such a country submitted a project without making a selection;
(iii) notwithstanding sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above, to consider requests from countries at risk of non-compliance;
(iv) to request the Secretariat to assist those countries that were having technical difficulties in making their selection;
(d) to take note of the five additional countries in Annex IV to document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/37/64.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/37/71, Decision 37/66, para. 102).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/37/64).
The Forty-first Meeting of the Executive Committee decided that a change in value from the figure of US $12.10/kg was not warranted.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/41/87, Decision 41/98, para. 158).