The Eighth Meeting of the Parties decided:
1. to note with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee pursuant to decision VII/29 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties;
2. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to further examine and report to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties on the different options on the issue of critical use of methyl bromide , as presented to the thirteenth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in the June 1996 TEAP Report.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.8/12, Decision VIII/16).
The Ninth Meeting of the Parties decided:
1. to apply the following criteria and procedure in assessing a critical methyl bromide use for the purposes of control measures in Article 2 of the Protocol:
(a) that a use of methyl bromide should qualify as "critical" only if the nominating Party determines that:
(i) the specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and
(ii) there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination;
(b) that production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if:
(i) all technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide ;
(ii) methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide , also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl bromide ;
(iii) it is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination and the special needs of Article 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert resources, institutional capacity, and information. Non-Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that feasible alternatives shall be adopted as soon as they are confirmed as suitable to the Party's specific conditions and/or that they have applied to the Multilateral Fund or other sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and demonstrating such options;
2. to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review nominations and make recommendations based on the criteria established in paragraphs 1 (a) (ii) and 1 (b) of the present decision;
3. that the present decision will apply to Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties not so operating only after the phase-out date applicable to those Parties.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/12, Decision IX/6).