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