Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by some Article 5 Parties

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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that, in accordance with decision XIV/18 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Albania 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 note with appreciation Albania’s submission of its plan of action, and to note further that, under the plan, Albania specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing CFC consumption from 69 ODP-tonnes in 2001 as follows:

(i) to 68.0 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 61.2 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 36.2 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iv) to 15.2 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(v) to 6.2 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(vi) to 2.2 ODP-tonnes in 2008;

(vii) to phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2009, as provided in the plan for reduction and phase out of CFC consumption, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to establishing, by 2004, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;

3. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable Albania to return to compliance by 2006, and to urge Albania to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I;

4. to monitor closely the progress of Albania with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. 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 that regard, Albania should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non compliance. Through the present decision, however, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those 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.15/9, Decision XV/26).

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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that Armenia has now been reclassified as a developing country under decision XIV/2 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties;

2. to note that ratification of the London Amendment is a precondition for Multilateral Fund funding, and therefore to call upon Armenia expeditiously to complete its process of ratification of the London Amendment;

3. to note further, however, that despite the absence of financial assistance, Armenia has reported data showing it to be in compliance with the freeze on CFC consumption, and to congratulate Armenia on its achievements.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/9, Decision XV/27).

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;

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;

13. 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

14. 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;

15. 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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that, in accordance with decision XIV/20 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Bolivia 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 note with appreciation Bolivia’s submission of its plan of action, and to note further that under the plan, Bolivia specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing CFC consumption from 65.5 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 63.6 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 47.6 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 37.84 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iv) to 11.35 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(v) to phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas, introduced in 2003;

(c) to monitoring its ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, introduced in 1997 for CFC-12 and extended to other ODS in 2003;

3. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above have already enabled Bolivia to return to compliance, to congratulate Bolivia on that progress, and to urge Bolivia to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I;

4. to monitor closely the progress of Bolivia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Bolivia 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 that regard, Bolivia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Bolivia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to remain in compliance the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those 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.15/9, Decision XV/29).

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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that, in accordance with decision XIV/21 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Bosnia and Herzegovina 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 note with appreciation Bosnia and Herzegovina’s submission of its plan of action, and to note further that, under the plan, Bosnia and Herzegovina specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing CFC consumption from 243.6 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 235.3 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 167 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 102.1 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iv) to 33 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(v) to 3 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(vi) to phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2008, as provided in the plan for reduction and phase-out of CFC consumption, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to reducing methyl bromide consumption from 11.8 ODP-tonnes in 2002, as follows:

(i) to 5.61 ODP-tonnes in 2005 and in 2006;

(ii) to phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2007, as provided in the plan for reduction and phase-out of methyl bromide consumption, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(d) to banning, by 2006, imports of ODS-using equipment;

3. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable Bosnia and Herzegovina to return to compliance by 2008, and to urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I and Annex E;

4. to monitor closely the progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs and methyl bromide. To the degree that Bosnia and Herzegovina 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 that regard, Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non compliance. Through the present decision, however, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs and methyl bromide (that is, the subjects of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/9, Decision XV/30).

Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Botswana

1. to note that Botswana ratified the Montreal Protocol on 4 December 1991, and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 13 May 1997. Botswana is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1994. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $438,340 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that Botswana’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 0.1 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 0.6 ODP-tonnes of the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Botswana was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to note with appreciation Botswana’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the control measures for the controlled substance in Annex E, and to note further that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol, Botswana specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing methyl bromide consumption from 0.6 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 0.4 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 0.2 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2005, as provided by the plan for reduction and phase-out of methyl bromide consumption, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to establishing a system for licensing imports and exports of methyl bromide, including quotas;

4. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Botswana to return to compliance by 2005, and to urge Botswana to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E;

5. to monitor closely the progress of Botswana with regard to the phase out of methyl bromide. To the degree that Botswana 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 that regard, Botswana should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Botswana, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide (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.15/9, Decision XV/31).

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 December 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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that, in accordance with decision XIV/32 of the Fourteenth 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 with regard to its consumption of Annex A, group I substances;

2. to note also that Cameroon has reported data for 2002 suggesting that it may now be in compliance with the freeze on CFC consumption, but that it has still not submitted data for the control period 1 July 2001-31 December 2002;

3. to urge Cameroon, accordingly, to report data for the control period 1 July 2001–31 December 2002 as a matter of urgency;

4. to note further that Cameroon’s baseline for Annex A, group II substances is 2.38 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 9 ODP-tonnes for Annex A, group II substances in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Cameroon was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;

5. to note with appreciation Cameroon’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the control measures for Annex A, group II substances, and to note also that, under the plan, Cameroon specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing halon consumption from 9 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 3 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 2.38 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to phasing out halon consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to monitoring its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas introduced in 2003;

6. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Cameroon to return to compliance, with respect to consumption of halons, by 2005, and to urge Cameroon to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group II;

7. to note also that Cameroon’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 18.09 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 25.38 ODP-tonnes of the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Cameroon was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;

8. to request Cameroon to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance with respect to consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E;

9. to monitor closely the progress of Cameroon with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of halons and methyl bromide. To the degree that Cameroon 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 that regard, Cameroon should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons and methyl bromide (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.15/9, Decision XV/32).

Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Democratic Republic of the Congo

1. to note that the Democratic Republic of the Congo ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 30 November 1994. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 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 $1,037,518 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that the baseline of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for Annex A, group II substances is 218.67 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 492 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group II substances in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in non compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to request the Democratic Republic of the Congo to submit to the Implementation Committee as a matter of urgency, for consideration at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. The Democratic Republic of the Congo may wish to consider including in that 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-using equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

4. to monitor closely the progress of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of halons. To the degree that the Democratic Republic of the Congo 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 that regard, the Democratic Republic of the Congo should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons (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.15/9, Decision XV/33).

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:

(a) to 34 ODP tonnes in 2003;

(b) to 17 ODP tonnes in 2005;

(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 Guatemala

1. to note that Guatemala ratified the Montreal Protocol on 7 November 1989 and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 21 January 2002. Guatemala is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 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 $6,302,694 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that Guatemala’s baseline for Annex A, group I substances is 224.6 ODP tonnes. It reported consumption of 239.6 ODP tonnes of Annex A, group I substances in 2002. Guatemala’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 400.7 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 709.4 ODP-tonnes of the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Guatemala was in non-compliance with its obligations under Articles 2A and 2H of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to note with appreciation Guatemala’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the control measures for Annex A, group I and Annex E substances, and to note further that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol, Guatemala specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing CFC consumption from 239.6 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 180.5 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 120 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 85 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iv) to 50 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(v) to 20 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(vi) to phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to reducing methyl bromide consumption from 709.4 ODP-tonnes in 2002, as follows:

(i) to 528 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 492 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 360 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iv) to 335 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(v) to 310 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(vi) to 286 ODP-tonnes in 2008;

(vii) to phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2015, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(d) to banning, by 2005, imports of ODS-using equipment;

4. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Guatemala to return to compliance by 2005 (CFCs) and 2007 (methyl bromide), and to urge Guatemala to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I and Annex E;

5. to monitor closely the progress of Guatemala with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs and methyl bromide. To the degree that Guatemala 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 that regard, Guatemala should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Guatemala, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs and methyl bromide (that is, the subjects of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/9, Decision XV/34).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Honduras

1. to note that Honduras ratified the Montreal Protocol on 14 October 1993 and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 24 January 2002. Honduras is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 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 $2,912,410 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that Honduras’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 259.43 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 412.52 ODP-tonnes of the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Honduras was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to recognize the devastation and disruption to agriculture caused by Hurricane Mitch in October 1998, which contributed to the increase in use of methyl bromide, and to applaud Honduras’s efforts to recover from the situation;

4. to note with appreciation Honduras’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the control measures for the controlled substance in Annex E, and to note further that, under the plan, Honduras specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing methyl bromide consumption from 412.52 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 370.0 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 306.1 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 207.5 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(b) to monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas, in force since May 2003;

5. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 4 above should enable Honduras to return to compliance by 2005, and to urge Honduras to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the ozone-depleting substance in Annex E;

6. to monitor closely the progress of Honduras with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that Honduras 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 that regard, Honduras should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Honduras, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide (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.15/9, Decision XV/35).

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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that, in accordance with decision XIV/25 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 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 note with appreciation the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s submission of its plan of action, and to note also that, under the plan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing CFC consumption from 985 ODP-tonnes in 2001 as follows:

(i) to 710.0 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 610.0 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 303.0 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iv) to 107 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(v) to phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to establishing, by 2004, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;

3. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above should enable the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to return to compliance by 2003, and to urge the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I;

4. to monitor closely the progress of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 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 that regard, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution the 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those 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.15/9, Decision XV/36).

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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that, in accordance with decision XIV/26 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Maldives 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 note with appreciation Maldives’ submission of its plan of action, and to note also that, under the plan, Maldives specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing CFC consumption from 2.8 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 0 ODP-tonnes in 2003, 2004 and 2005;

(ii) to 2.3 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(iii) to 0.69 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(iv) to 0 ODP-tonnes in 2008 and 2009;

(v) to phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to monitoring its existing system for licensing imports of ODS, including quotas, introduced in 2002;

3. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above have already enabled Maldives to return to compliance, to congratulate Maldives on that progress and to urge Maldives to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I;

4. to monitor closely the progress of Maldives with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Maldives 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 that regard, Maldives should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Maldives, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to remain in compliance the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those 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.15/9, Decision XV/37).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Morocco

1. to note that Morocco has reported annual data for Annex C, group II, for 2002 which are above its requirement for a 100 per cent phase-out. In the absence of further clarification, Morocco is presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

2. to request Morocco to submit to the Implementation Committee, for consideration at its next meeting, an explanation for its excess consumption, and a plan of action with time specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance;

3. to monitor closely the progress of Morocco with regard to the phase-out of hydrobromofluorocarbons. To the degree that Morocco 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 that regard, Morocco should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Morocco, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/9, Decision XV/23).

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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that, in accordance with decision XIV/22 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Namibia 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 note with appreciation Namibia’s submission of its plan of action, and to note also that, under the plan, Namibia specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing CFC consumption from 20 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 19.0 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 14.0 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 10.0 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iv) to 9.0 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(v) to 3.2 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(vi) to 2.0 ODP-tonnes in 2008;

(vii) to 1.0 ODP-tonnes in 2009;

(viii) to phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to establishing, by 2004, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;

3. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 2 above have already enabled Namibia to return to compliance, to congratulate Namibia on that progress and to urge Namibia to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I;

4. to monitor closely the progress of Namibia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Namibia 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 that regard, Namibia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Namibia, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that it fails to remain in compliance the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those 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.15/9, Decision XV/38).

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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to recall that in its decision XIV/23 the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties noted that Nepal’s baseline for Annex A, group I substances is 27 ODP tonnes. Nepal 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-June 2001 control period Nepal was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;

2. to note that Nepal has subsequently reported that 74 ODP-tonnes of imports of CFCs have been detained by its customs authorities as the shipment lacked an import license, and that Nepal therefore wished to report the quantity as illegal trade under the terms of decision XIV/7;

3. to congratulate Nepal on its actions in seizing the shipment and in reporting the fact to the Secretariat;

4. to note also, however, that paragraph 7 of decision XIV/7 provides that “the illegally traded quantities should not be counted against a Party’s consumption provided the Party does not place the said quantities on its own market”;

5. to conclude, therefore, that if Nepal decides to release any of the seized quantity of CFCs into its domestic market, it would be considered to be in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol and would therefore be required to fulfill the terms of decision XIV/23, including submitting to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance;

6. to request the Implementation Committee to review the situation of Nepal at its next meeting.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/9, Decision XV/39).

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;

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 Papua New Guinea

1. to note that Papua New Guinea ratified the Montreal Protocol on 27 October 1992, the London Amendment on 4 May 1993 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 7 October 2003. Papua New Guinea is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 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 $704,454 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that Papua New Guinea’s baseline for Annex A, group I substances is 36.3 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 44.3 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group I substances for the control period 1 July 2000-30 June 2001. As a consequence, for the July 2000-June 2001 control period Papua New Guinea was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to note with appreciation Papua New Guinea’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the control measures for Annex A, group I substances and to note further that, under the plan, Papua New Guinea specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing CFC consumption from 35 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 35 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 26 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to 17 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iv) to 8 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(v) to 4.5 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

(vi) to phasing out CFC consumption by 1 January 2010, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to establishing, by 2004, a system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;

4. to note that the measures listed above in paragraph 3 should enable Papua New Guinea to return to compliance by 1 January 2004, and to urge Papua New Guinea to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I;

5. to monitor closely the progress of Papua New Guinea with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. To the degree that Papua New Guinea 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 that regard, Papua New Guinea should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Papua New Guinea, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those 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.15/9, Decision XV/40).

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 Qatar

1. to note that Qatar ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen amendments on 22 January 1996. Qatar is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 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 $698,849 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that Qatar has failed to report data for consumption of Annex A, group I substances for the control period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and has reported annual data for 2002 which is above its requirement for a freeze in consumption. In the absence of further clarification, Qatar is presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

3. to urge Qatar, accordingly, to report data for the control period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 as a matter of urgency;

4. to note further that Qatar’s baseline for Annex A, group II substances is 10.65 ODP tonnes. It reported consumption of 13.6 ODP-tonnes of Annex A, group II substances in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Qatar was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;

5. to request Qatar to submit to the Implementation Committee, for consideration at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Qatar may wish to consider including in that 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 using equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

6. to monitor closely the progress of Qatar with regard to the phase-out of CFCs and halons. to the degree that Qatar 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 that regard, Qatar should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Qatar, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs and halons (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.15/9, Decision XV/41).

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).

Subsequently, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1. to note that, in accordance with decision XIV/24 of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Parties, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 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 note also that the baseline of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for Annex A, group I substances is 1.77 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 6.04, 6.86 and 6.02 ODP tonnes of Annex A, group I substances in 2000, 2001 and 2002 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. It has failed to report data for CFC consumption for the control period of 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002. As a consequence, for the period 2000 2002, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to note with regret that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has not fulfilled the requirements of decision XIV/24 and to request that it should submit to the Implementation Committee, as a matter of urgency, for consideration at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks in order for the Committee to monitor its progress towards compliance;

4. to stress to the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 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;

5. to monitor closely the progress of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines with regard to the phase-out of CFCs. 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 that regard, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non compliance. Through the present decision, however, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those 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.15/9, Decision XV/42).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Uganda

1. to note that Uganda ratified the Montreal Protocol on 15 September 1988, the London Amendment on 20 January 1994, the Copenhagen Amendment on 22 November 1999 and the Montreal Amendment on 23 November 1999. Uganda is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1994. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $547,896 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that Uganda’s baseline for Annex A, group I substances is 12.8 ODP tonnes. It has failed to report data for either of the control periods 1 July 2000-30 June 2001 and 1 July 2001-31 December 2002, and has reported annual data for 2001 which is above its baseline. In the absence of further clarification, Uganda is presumed to be in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to urge Uganda, accordingly, to report data for the control periods from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 and 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, as a matter of urgency;

4. to note further that Uganda has presented sufficient information to justify its request for a change in its baseline consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E from 1.9 ODP tonnes to 6.3 ODP-tonnes, and that that change is therefore approved;

5. to note that Uganda presented its request for a baseline change before the Implementation Committee had been able to recommend a standard methodology for the presentation of requests for such changes, and that all future requests should follow the methodology described in decision XV/19;

6. to note, however, that Uganda reported consumption of 30 ODP tonnes for the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002, even after the revision in its baseline, Uganda was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;

7. to note with appreciation Uganda’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the control measures for the controlled substance in Annex E, and to note further that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol, Uganda specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing methyl bromide consumption from 30 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 24 ODP-tonnes in 2003 and in 2004;

(ii) to 6 ODP-tonnes in 2005;

(iii) to 4.8 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

(iv) to phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2007, as provided in the plan for reduction and phase-out of methyl bromide consumption, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ODS introduced in 1998, which will be modified by the inclusion of quotas in the first quarter of 2004;

8. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 7 above should enable Uganda to return to compliance by 2007, and to urge Uganda to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E;

9. to monitor closely the progress of Uganda with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs and methyl bromide. To the degree that Uganda 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 that regard, Uganda should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Uganda, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of CFCs and methyl bromide (that is, the subjects of non-compliance) is ceased and that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/9, Decision XV/43).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Uruguay

1. to note that Uruguay ratified the Montreal Protocol on 8 January 1991, the London Amendment on 16 November 1993, the Copenhagen Amendment on 3 July 1997, the Montreal Amendment on 16 February 2000 and the Beijing Amendment on 9 September 2003. The country is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 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 $4,856,042 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that Uruguay’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E is 11.2 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 17.7 ODP-tonnes for the controlled substance in Annex E in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Uruguay was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to note with appreciation Uruguay’s submission of its plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the control measures for the controlled substance in Annex E, and to note further that, under the plan, Uruguay specifically commits itself:

(a) to reducing methyl bromide consumption from 17.7 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

(i) to 12 ODP-tonnes in 2003;

(ii) to 4 ODP-tonnes in 2004;

(iii) to phasing out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2005, as provided in the plan for reduction and phase-out of methyl bromide consumption, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

(b) to monitoring its system for licensing imports and exports of ODS, including quotas;

4. to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Uruguay to return to compliance by 2004, and to urge Uruguay to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E;

5. to monitor closely the progress of Uruguay with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that Uruguay 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 that regard, Uruguay should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Uruguay, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of methyl bromide (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.15/9, Decision XV/44).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Vietnam

1. to note that Vietnam ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 26 January 1994. Vietnam is classified as a Party operating under Article 5, paragraph 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 $3,150,436 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2. to note also that Vietnam’s baseline for Annex A, group II substances is 37.07 ODP-tonnes. It reported consumption of 97.60 ODP-tonnes for Annex A, group II substances in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002 Vietnam was in non compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;

3. to request Vietnam to submit to the Implementation Committee, for consideration at its next meeting, a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Vietnam may wish to consider including in that 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-using equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

4. to note that Vietnam may also wish to draw upon the ongoing assistance provided by the United Nations Environment Programme Compliance Assistance Programme and the halon phase-out assistance previously provided by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and to consult with the Halons Technical Options Committee of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, to identify and introduce alternatives to the use of halon 2402 on oil vessels and platforms;

5. to monitor closely the progress of Vietnam with regard to the phase out of halons. To the degree that Vietnam 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 that regard, Vietnam should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance. Through the present decision, however, the Parties caution Vietnam, 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 will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of halons (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.15/9, Decision XV/45).