The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided that each Party is requested, as far as possible and as appropriate, to give consideration in selecting alternatives and substitutes, bearing in mind, inter alia, Article 2F, paragraph 7, of the Copenhagen Amendment regarding hydrochlorofluorocarbons, to:
(a) environmental aspects;
(b) human health and safety aspects;
(c) the technical feasibility, the commercial availability and performance;
(d) economic aspects, including cost comparisons among different technology options taking into account:
(i) all interim steps leading to final ODS elimination;
(ii) social costs;
(iii) dislocation costs, etc.; and
(e) country-specific circumstances and due local expertise.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/5/12 Decision V/8 (section 1).
The Twelfth Meeting of the Executive Committee adopted the following recommendations on the use of transitional substances as substitutes for ozone depleting substances:
(a) in view of the ongoing review requested of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, the paper on The Use of Transitional Substances as Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/12/34) may not be considered as a policy guideline but as a possible input to the work of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
(b) meanwhile, consideration of the use of HCFC in the Multilateral Fund projects should be sector-specific and approved for use only in areas where more environment-friendly and viable alternative technologies are not available.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/12/37, para. 168).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/12/34).
The Fifteenth Meeting of the Executive Committee stated that, whenever possible, HCFCs should not be used. It further requested that the applicability of HCFCs in commercial refrigeration projects should be examined by an expert group, possibly the OORG, which should prepare a report for submission to the Executive Committee.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/15/45, para. 90).
The Executive Committee requested Implementing Agencies to take the following issue into consideration when preparing projects for domestic refrigerator insulation foam conversion:
(a) as HCFCs were not controlled substances for Article 5 countries, incremental costs for conversion of HCFC-141b plants were not eligible for funding;
(b) Implementing Agencies should note a presumption against HCFCs when preparing projects; and
(c) where HCFC projects were proposed, the choice of this technology should be fully justified and include an estimate of the potential future costs of second-stage conversion.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/15/45, para. 129).
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/17/60, Decision 17/17 para. 26).
The Executive Committee, noting the recommendation of the Sub-Committee (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/19/5, para. 12), decided:
(a) to take note of decision VII/3 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to control HCFCs and to note further that projects involving conversion to HCFCs should be considered in the light of that decision, as well as other relevant factors;
(b) that in the future, in cases where conversion to HCFCs was recommended, the Implementing Agencies should be requested to provide a full explanation of the reasons why such conversion was recommended, together with supporting documentation that the criteria laid down by the Executive Committee for transitional substances had been met, and should make it clear that the enterprises concerned had agreed to bear the cost of subsequent conversion to non-HCFC substances; and
(c) to request the Secretariat to prepare for examination by the Executive Committee at its Twentieth Meeting a paper on:
(i) the historical background to HCFC conversion projects;
(ii) what information on alternatives to HCFCs had been provided by the Implementing Agencies to the applicant countries, and how that information had been received and acted upon; and
(iii) the justifications given for the choice of one technology over another.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/19/64, Decision 19/2, para. 17).
The Twentieth Meeting of the Executive Committee, decided:
(b) to request the Implementing Agencies to ensure that adequate information on all alternative technologies was provided to enterprises converting from CFCs;
(c) to reaffirm paragraph (b) of its decision 19/2 which stated that, in cases where conversion to HCFCs was recommended, the Implementing Agencies should be requested to provide a full explanation of the reasons why such conversion was recommended, together with supporting documentation that the criteria laid down by the Executive Committee for transitional substances had been met, and should make it clear that the enterprises concerned had agreed to bear the cost of subsequent conversion to non-HCFC substances.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/20/72, Decision 20/48, para. 72 (b, c).
The Twenty-sixth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:
(a) that the full information provided in the project document should be included in the project evaluation sheet;
(b) that where, upon review by the Fund Secretariat, a project proposal requesting HCFC technology was considered to provide inadequate information justifying the choice of that technology, the project should be submitted for individual consideration by the Sub-Committee on Project Review.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/26/70, Decision 26/26, para. 50).