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;

      (c)  to banning, by 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;

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).

Non-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).

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Armenia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 1 October 1999 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, and that the Council of the Global Environment Facility has approved $2,090,000 to enable Armenia’s compliance;

2.   to note further that Armenia has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) for 2004 of 1.020 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of zero ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Armenia is therefore in non compliance with the control measures for methyl bromide under the Protocol;

3.   to request Armenia, as a matter of urgency, 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. Armenia may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

4.   to monitor closely the progress of Armenia with regard to the phase-out of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide). To the degree that the Party 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, Armenia 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Armenia, 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 Meeting of 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 the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) that is the substance that is the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/25).

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Armenia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 1 October 1999 and the London and Copenhagen Amendments to the Protocol on 26 November 2003 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that the Council of the Global Environment Facility has approved $2,090,000 to enable Armenia’s compliance with the Protocol;

3.   to note further that Armenia has reported annual consumption for the Annex E controlled substance (methyl bromide) for 2004 of 1.020 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of zero ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Armenia is therefore in non compliance with the control measures for methyl bromide under the Protocol;

4.   to note with appreciation Armenia’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Armenia specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to maintain methyl bromide consumption at no more than zero ODP-tonnes from 2007, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2015;

      (b)  to introduce by 1 July 2007 a system for licensing the import and export of ozone depleting substances that includes import quotas;

5.   to note that Armenia has reported methyl bromide consumption for 2005 that demonstrates its return to compliance in that year and to congratulate the Party on that achievement, but also to note the Party’s concern that, until the measures contained in subparagraph 4 (b) of the present decision come into force, the Party cannot be confident of its ability to sustain its return to compliance, and therefore to urge Armenia to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action to sustain its phase-out of consumption of methyl bromide;

6.   to monitor closely the progress of Armenia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of methyl bromide. to the degree that the Party 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, Armenia 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 Armenia, 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 methyl bromide that is the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/20).

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).

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Bangladesh ratified the Montreal Protocol on 2 August 1990, the London Amendment on 18 March 1994, the Copenhagen Amendment on 27 November 2000 and the Montreal Amendment on 27 July 2001 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in September 1994. The Executive Committee has approved $1,852,164 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that Bangladesh’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform), is 0.8667 ODP tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of 0.892 ODP tonnes of methyl chloroform in 2003, it was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Bangladesh’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Bangladesh specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to maintain methyl chloroform consumption at no more than the 2004 level of 0.550 ODP tonnes from 2005 until 2009, and then to reduce methyl chloroform consumption as follows:

            (i)   to 0.2600 ODP tonnes in 2010;

            (ii)  to zero ODP tonnes in 2015, as required under the Montreal Protocol, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after that date;

      (b)  to monitor its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, which includes import quotas;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above have already enabled Bangladesh to return to compliance in 2004, to congratulate the country on that progress and to urge it to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action and to phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group III;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Bangladesh with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of methyl chloroform. to the degree that the Party 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, Bangladesh 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 Bangladesh, 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 methyl chloroform that is the substance that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/27).

Non-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;

      (c)  to ban, by 1 January 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;

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;

5.       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

1.       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;

2.       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;

3.       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;

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

      (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).

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the Montreal Protocol on 1 September 1993 and the London, Copenhagen and Montreal amendments on 11 August 2003, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in March 1999. The Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol has approved $2,900,771 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform), is 1.548 ODP tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of 3.600 ODP tonnes of methyl chloroform in 2003 and consumption of 2.44 ODP tonnes of methyl chloroform in 2004, it was in non compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Bosnia and Herzegovina’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform control measures, and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Bosnia and Herzegovina specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce methyl chloroform consumption from 2.44 ODP tonnes in 2004 as follows:

            (i)   to 1.3 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (ii)  to zero ODP tonnes in 2006, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2015;

      (b)  to establish a system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, which includes import quotas, by the end of January 2006;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Bosnia and Herzegovina to return to compliance in 2006 and to urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group III;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of methyl chloroform. to the degree that the Party 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 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 methyl chloroform that is the substance that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/28).

Non-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).

Non-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;

      (c)  to monitoring its existing ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, introduced in 1996;

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).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Chile

1.   to note that Chile has reported annual data for the controlled substances in Annex B, group I (other fully halogenated CFCs), Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform), and Annex E (methyl bromide) for 2003 which are above its requirements for those substances. As a consequence, for 2003, Chile was in non-compliance with its obligations under Articles 2C, 2E and 2H of the Montreal Protocol;

2.   to request Chile, as a matter of urgency, to submit a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Chile may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

3.   to monitor closely the progress of Chile with regard to the phase-out of other CFCs, methyl chloroform and methyl bromide. to the degree that Chile is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In that regard, Chile 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Chile, 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 Meeting of 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 other CFCs, methyl chloroform 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.16/17, Decision XVI/22).

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Chile ratified the Montreal Protocol on 26 March 1990, the London Amendment on 9 April 1992, the Copenhagen Amendment on 14 January 1994, the Montreal Amendment on 17 June 1998 and the Beijing Amendment on 3 May 2000, and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in June 1992. The Executive Committee has approved $10,388,451 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that Chile’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform), is 6.445 ODP tonnes and its baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) is 212.510 ODP tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of 6.967 ODP tonnes of methyl chloroform and 274.302 ODP tonnes of methyl bromide in 2003 and consumption of 3.605 ODP tonnes of methyl chloroform and consumption of 262.776 ODP tonnes of methyl bromide in 2004, it was in non compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal Protocol in 2003 and under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol in 2003 and 2004;

3.   to note with appreciation Chile’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform and methyl bromide control measures, and to note that under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Chile specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to maintain methyl chloroform consumption at no more than 4.512 ODP tonnes from 2005 until 2009, and then to reduce methyl chloroform consumption as follows:

            (i)   to 1.934 ODP tonnes in 2010;

            (ii)  to zero ODP tonnes by 1 January 2015, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after that date;

      (b)  to reduce methyl bromide consumption from 262.776 ODP tonnes in 2004 as follows:

            (i)   to 170 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (ii)  to zero ODP tonnes by 1 January 2015, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties after that date;

      (c)  to introduce an enhanced ozone-depleting substances licensing and import quota system from the moment the bill is approved in Parliament and to ensure compliance in the interim period by adopting regulatory measures that the Government is entitled to apply;

4.   to note that Chile has reported data for 2004 that indicate that it has already returned to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform control measures, to congratulate Chile on that progress, and to urge the Party to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the remainder of the plan of action to achieve total phase-out of methyl chloroform;

5.   to note also that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Chile to return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures by 2005, and to urge Chile to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to achieve total phase-out of methyl bromide;

6.   to monitor closely the progress of Chile with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of methyl chloroform and methyl bromide. to the degree that the Party 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, Chile 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Chile, 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 Meeting of 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 chloroform and methyl bromide that is the substances that are the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/29).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by China

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that China ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 14 June 1991 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 22 April 2003, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in March 1993. The Executive Committee has approved $623,438,283 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that China has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex B, group I (other CFCs), for 2004 of 20.539 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 20.5336 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that, in the absence of further clarification, China is presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures of the Protocol;

3.   to request China, as a matter of urgency, to submit to the Implementation Committee for consideration at its next meeting an explanation for its excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. China may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule;

4.   to monitor closely the progress of China with regard to the phase out of the controlled substances in Annex B, group I (other CFCs). to the degree that the Party 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, China 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions China, 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 Meeting of 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 the controlled substances in Annex B, group I (other CFCs), that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/30).

Non-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).

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that the Democratic Republic of the Congo ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 30 November 1994 and the Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 23 March 2005, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in March 1999. The Executive Committee has approved $2,974,819.30 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 16.500 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 2.288 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that the Party is therefore in non compliance with the carbon tetrachloride control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to note further that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III, (methyl chloroform) for 2005 of 4.000 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 3.330 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is therefore in non compliance with the methyl chloroform control measures under the Protocol;

4.   to note with appreciation the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s submission of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, the Party specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to maintain carbon tetrachloride consumption in 2006 at no more than 16.500 ODP tonnes and then to reduce it as follows:

            (i)   to 2.2 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

            (ii)  to zero in 2008;

      (b)  to maintain methyl chloroform consumption in 2006 at no more than 4.000 ODP tonnes and then to reduce it as follows:

            (i)   to 3.3 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

            (ii)  to zero in 2008;

      (c)  to monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone depleting substances, which includes import quotas;

5.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable the Democratic Republic of the Congo to return to compliance with the Protocol in 2007 and to urge the Party to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform;

6.   to monitor closely the progress of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with regard to the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. to the degree that the Party 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 Party 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions 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 Meeting of 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 carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform that are the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/21).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Dominica

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Dominica ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 31 March 1993 and the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 7 March 2006, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in November 1998. The Executive Committee has approved $232,320 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Dominica’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that Dominica has reported annual consumption for the Annex A, group I, controlled substances (CFCs) for 2005 of 1.388 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 0.740 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that Dominica is therefore in non compliance with the control measures for CFCs under the Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Dominica’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Dominica specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce CFC consumption from 1.388 ODP-tonnes in 2005 as follows:

            (i)   to 0.45 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

            (ii)  to zero ODP-tonnes from 2007, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2010;

      (b)  to introduce by 31 December 2006 a system for licensing the import and export of ozone depleting substances that includes import quotas for all ozone-depleting substances listed under the Protocol. With regard to CFCs, Dominica would set annual quotas consistent with the levels stated in paragraph 3 (a) of the present decision, except to meet the needs of any national disasters and resulting emergencies, in which case Dominica will ensure that the annual quotas do not exceed its maximum allowable levels of consumption as prescribed by Article 2A of the Protocol or such levels as may be otherwise authorized by the Parties;

      (c)  to monitor its ban on the import of equipment requiring the supply of ozone-depleting substances, noting that the ban excludes equipment for medical purposes;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Dominica to return to compliance in 2006 and to urge Dominica to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of CFCs;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Dominica with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. to the degree that the Party 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, Dominica 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 Dominica, 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 are the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/22).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Ecuador

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Ecuador ratified the Montreal Protocol on 10 April 1990 and the London Amendment on 30 April 1990, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in February 1992. The Executive Committee has approved $5,493,045 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that Ecuador’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform), is 1.997 ODP tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of 3.484 ODP tonnes of methyl chloroform in 2003, it was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Ecuador’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl chloroform control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Ecuador specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce methyl chloroform consumption from 2.50 ODP tonnes in 2004 to 1.3979 ODP tonnes in 2005;

      (b)  to monitor its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, which includes import quotas;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Ecuador to return to compliance in 2005 and to urge Ecuador to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform);

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Ecuador with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of methyl chloroform. to the degree that the Party 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, Ecuador 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 Ecuador, 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 methyl chloroform that is, the substance that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/31).

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Ecuador ratified the Montreal Protocol on 10 April 1990, the London Amendment on 30 April 1990 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 24 November 1993, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in February 1992. The Executive Committee has approved $5,737,500 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Ecuador’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that Ecuador has reported annual consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) for 2005 of 153.000 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 52.892 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Ecuador is therefore in non compliance with the methyl bromide control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to request Ecuador, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2007, to submit to the Secretariat, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, a plan of action with time specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Ecuador may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

4.   to monitor closely the progress of Ecuador with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. to the degree that the Party 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, Ecuador 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Ecuador, 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 Meeting of 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 so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/23).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Eritrea

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Eritrea ratified the Montreal Protocol on 10 March 2005 and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 5 July 2005 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol. The Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol has approved $106,700 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note that Eritrea has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 30.220 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 20.574 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that in the absence of further clarification Eritrea is therefore presumed to be in non compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to request Eritrea to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2007, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, an explanation for its excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Eritrea may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of ozone depleting substance using equipment and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

4.   to monitor closely the progress of Eritrea with regard to the phase-out of CFCs. to the degree that the Party 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, Eritrea 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Eritrea, 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 Meeting of 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 are the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/24).

Non-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;

4.       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;

      (c)  to 5 ODP tonnes in 2007; and

      (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 Fiji

1.   to note that Fiji has reported annual data for the controlled substances in Annex E (methyl bromide) for 2003 that is above its requirement for that substance. As a consequence, for 2003, Fiji was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol;

2.   to request Fiji, as a matter of urgency, to submit a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Fiji may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

3.   to monitor closely the progress of Fiji with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. to the degree that Fiji 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, Fiji 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Fiji, 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 Meeting of 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.16/17, Decision XVI/23).

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Fiji ratified the Montreal Protocol on 23 October 1989, the London Amendment on 9 December 1994 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 17 May 2000, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in June 1993. The Executive Committee has approved $542,908 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that Fiji’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) is 0.6710 ODP tonnes. As the Party reported consumption of methyl bromide of 1.506 ODP tonnes in 2003 and 1.609 ODP tonnes in 2004, it was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol in those years;

3.   to note with appreciation Fiji’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Fiji specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce methyl bromide consumption from 1.609 ODP tonnes in 2004 as follows:

            (i)   to 1.5 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (ii)  to 1.3 ODP tonnes in 2006;

            (iii) to 1.0 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (iv) to 0.5 ODP tonnes in 2008;

      (b)  to monitor its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances;

      (c)  to commence implementation of a methyl bromide import quota system in 2006;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Fiji to return to compliance in 2008, and to urge Fiji to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of methyl bromide;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Fiji with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that the Party 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, Fiji 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 Fiji, 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 methyl bromide that is the substance that is the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/33).

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;

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

      (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).

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

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 paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $6,366,065 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to recall decision XV/34, which noted that Guatemala was in non-compliance in 2002 with its obligations under Article 2H of the Protocol to freeze its consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) at its baseline level of 400.7 ODP-tonnes but also noted with appreciation the plan of action submitted by Guatemala to ensure its prompt return to compliance in 2007 with the Protocol’s methyl bromide consumption control measures;

3.   to note with concern, however, that Guatemala has reported consumption of methyl bromide for 2005 of 522.792 ODP-tonnes, which is inconsistent with the Party’s commitment contained in decision XV/34 to reduce its methyl bromide consumption to 360 ODP tonnes in 2005;

4.   to note further the advice of Guatemala that all relevant stakeholders have committed to phase out methyl bromide in accordance with the revised time-specific consumption reduction benchmarks contained in paragraph 5 of the present decision, which provide the Party with one additional year to overcome the technical, economic and political challenges that were the cause of the Party’s deviation from its commitments contained in decision XV/34;

5.   to note also with appreciation that Guatemala has submitted a revised plan of action for methyl bromide phase-out in controlled uses and to note, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, that under the revised plan Guatemala specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce methyl bromide consumption from 709.4 ODP-tonnes in 2002 as follows:

            (i)   to 400.70 ODP-tonnes in 2006;

            (ii)  to 361 ODP-tonnes in 2007;

            (iii) to 320.56 ODP-tonnes in 2008;

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

      (b)  to monitor its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including quotas;

6.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Guatemala to return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures in 2008 and to urge Guatemala to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of methyl bromide;

7.   to monitor closely the progress of Guatemala with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of 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 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.18/10, Decision XVIII/26).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Guinea-Bissau

1.   to note that Guinea-Bissau ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London, Copenhagen and Beijing amendments on 12 November 2002. Guinea-Bissau is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 2004. The Executive Committee has approved $669,593 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that Guinea-Bissau’s baseline for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), is 26.275 ODP tonnes. It reported consumption of 29.446 ODP tonnes of CFCs in 2003. As a consequence, for 2003, Guinea-Bissau was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol;

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

      (a)  to reducing CFC consumption from 29.446 ODP tonnes in 2003 as follows:

            (i)   to 26.275 ODP tonnes in 2004;

            (ii)  to 13.137 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (iii) to 13.137 ODP tonnes in 2006;

            (iv) to 3.941 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (v)  to 3.941 ODP tonnes in 2008;

            (vi) to 3.941 ODP tonnes in 2009;

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

      (b)  to introduce a system for licensing imports and exports of ozone depleting substances, including quotas by the end of 2004;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Guinea-Bissau to return to compliance by 2004, and to urge Guinea-Bissau to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of CFCs;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Guinea-Bissau with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. to the degree that Guinea-Bissau 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, Guinea-Bissau 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Guinea-Bissau, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Meeting of 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.16/17, Decision XVI/24).

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;

      (c)  to monitoring its ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, 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).

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Honduras ratified the Montreal Protocol on 14 October 1993 and the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 24 January 2002, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1996. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $3,342,025 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to recall decision XV/35, which noted that Honduras was in non-compliance in 2002 with its obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol to freeze its consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) at its baseline level of 259.43 ODP tonnes, but also noted with appreciation the plan of action submitted by Honduras to ensure its prompt return to compliance in 2005;

3.   to note with concern, however, that while Honduras has reported consumption of methyl bromide for 2004 of 340.80 ODP tonnes that is less than its reported consumption for 2003, it is still inconsistent with the Party’s commitment contained in decision XV/35 to reduce its methyl bromide consumption to 306.1 ODP tonnes in 2004;

4.   Further to note the advice of Honduras that its stakeholders remain committed to methyl bromide phase out and that an additional two years would be required to overcome the technical difficulties that were the cause of the Party’s deviation from its commitments contained in decision XV/35;

5.   to note with appreciation that Honduras has submitted a revised plan of action for methyl bromide phase-out in controlled uses, and to note, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, that under the revised plan Honduras specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce methyl bromide consumption from 340.80 ODP tonnes in 2004 as follows:

      (i)   to 327.6000 ODP tonnes in 2005;

      (ii)  to 295.8000 ODP tonnes in 2006;

      (iii) to 255.0000 ODP tonnes in 2007;

      (iv) to 207.5424 ODP tonnes in 2008;

      (b)  to monitor its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including quotas, in force since May 2003;

      (c)  to monitor its ban on imports of equipment using ozone depleting substances, in force since May 2003;

6.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Honduras to return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures in 2008 and to urge Honduras to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide);

7.   to monitor closely the progress of Honduras with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of the controlled substance in Annex E (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.17/11, Decision XVII/34).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Islamic Republic of Iran

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that the Islamic Republic of Iran ratified the Montreal Protocol on 3 October 1990, the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 4 August 1997 and the Montreal Amendment on 17 October 2001, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in June 1993. The Executive Committee has approved $59,507,714 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note that the Islamic Republic of Iran has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 13.640 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 11.550 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that in the absence of further clarification the Islamic Republic of Iran is therefore presumed to be in non compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to request the Islamic Republic of Iran to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2007, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, an explanation for its excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. The Islamic Republic of Iran may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase out schedule, a ban on imports of ozone depleting substance using equipment and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

4.   to monitor closely the progress of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the phase out of carbon tetrachloride. to the degree that the Party 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 Islamic Republic of Iran 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions the Islamic Republic of Iran, 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 Meeting of 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 carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/27).

The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   that the Islamic Republic of Iran reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 13.6 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption of 11.6 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, but that the Party’s excess consumption was for laboratory and analytical uses;

2.   to record with appreciation the submission by the Islamic Republic of Iran of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures, under which, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, the Islamic Republic of Iran specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reducing consumption to no greater than:

            (i)   11.6 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (ii)  zero ODP tonnes in 2008, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

      (b)  to monitoring its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone depleting substances, including import quotas;

3.   to urge the Islamic Republic of Iran to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;

4.   to monitor closely the progress of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. to the degree that the Party is working toward 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 Islamic Republic of Iran 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;

5.   to caution the Islamic Republic of Iran 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 the carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7, Decision XIX/27).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kenya

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Kenya ratified the Montreal Protocol on 9 November 1988, the London and Copenhagen Amendments on 27 September 1994 and the Montreal Amendment on 12 July 2000, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in July 1994. The Executive Committee has approved $4,579,057 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Kenya’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that Kenya has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 162.210 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 119.728 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that Kenya is therefore in non compliance with the control measures for CFCs under the Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Kenya’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Kenya specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce CFC consumption from 162.210 ODP-tonnes in 2005 to 60.00 ODP tonnes in 2006;

      (b)  to further reduce CFC consumption from 60.00 ODP-tonnes in 2006 to 30.00 ODP tonnes in 2007;

      (c)  to further reduce CFC consumption from 30.00 ODP-tonnes in 2007 to 10.00 ODP tonnes in 2008;

      (d)  to further reduce CFC consumption from 10.00 ODP-tonnes in 2008 to zero (0.00) ODP tonnes in 2009, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2010;

      (e)  to monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone depleting substances, which includes import quotas;

4.   to urge Kenya to gazette the ozone depleting substances regulations required to establish and implement its system for licensing the import and export of ozone depleting substances, which includes import quotas, as soon as possible and preferably no later than 31 December 2006;

5.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Kenya to return to compliance with the Protocol in 2006 and to urge Kenya to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of CFCs;

6.   to monitor closely the progress of Kenya with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. to the degree that the Party 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, Kenya 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 Kenya, 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 are the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/28).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Kyrgyzstan

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Kyrgyzstan ratified the Montreal Protocol on 31 May 2000, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in July 2002. The Executive Committee has approved $1,206,732 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that Kyrgyzstan has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), for 2004 of 2.40 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of zero ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that Kyrgyzstan is therefore in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Kyrgyzstan’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s halon control measures, and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Kyrgyzstan specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to maintain consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), at no more than the 2004 level of 2.40 ODP tonnes in 2005, and then to reduce halon consumption as follows:

            (i)   to 1.20 ODP tonnes in 2006;

            (ii)  to 0.60 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (iii) to phase out consumption of these controlled substances by 1 January 2008, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

      (b)  to monitor its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances;

      (c)  to introduce a ban on the import of equipment containing halons and equipment that uses halons by 1 January 2006;

      (d)  to introduce an import quota system to limit annual consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), by the beginning of 2006;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Kyrgyzstan to return to compliance in 2008 and to urge Kyrgyzstan to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons);

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Kyrgyzstan with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of Annex A, group II, controlled substances (halons). to the degree that the Party 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, Kyrgyzstan 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 Kyrgyzstan, 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 Annex A, group II, controlled substances (halons) that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/36).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Lesotho

1.   to note that Lesotho ratified the Montreal Protocol on 25 March 1994. Lesotho is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1996. The Executive Committee has approved $311,332 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note also that Lesotho’s baseline for the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), is 0.2 ODP tonnes. It reported consumption of 1.8 ODP tonnes of halons in 2002. As a consequence, for 2002, Lesotho was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;

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

      (a)  to reducing halon consumption from 1.8 ODP tonnes in 2002 as follows:

            (i)   to 0.8 ODP tonnes in 2004;

            (ii)  to 0.2 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (iii) to 0.1 ODP tonnes in 2006;

            (iv) to 0.1 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (v)  to zero ODP tonnes in 2008, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties after 1 January 2010;

      (b)  to introduce a quota system for the import of halons;

      (c)  to introduce a ban on the import of halon-based equipment and systems in 2005;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Lesotho to return to compliance by 2006, and to urge Lesotho to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of halons;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Lesotho with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of halons. to the degree that Lesotho 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, Lesotho 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Lesotho, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Meeting of 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.16/17, Decision XVI/25).

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;

      (c)  to monitoring its ban on imports of ODS-using equipment, introduced in 2003;

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).

Subsequently, the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has reported annual data for the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), for 2003 which is above its requirements for those substances. As a consequence, for 2003, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2B of the Montreal Protocol;

2.   to request the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, as a matter of urgency, to submit a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to freeze imports at baseline levels and support the phase-out schedule, a ban on the import of ozone-depleting-substances-using equipment, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

3.   to monitor closely the progress of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regard to the phase out of halons. 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 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions 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 Meeting of 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.16/17, Decision XVI/26).

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ratified the Montreal Protocol on 11 July 1990, the London Amendment on 12 July 2001 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 24 September 2004, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in December 2000. The Executive Committee has approved $5,198,886 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s baseline for Annex A, group II, controlled substances (halons) is 633.067 ODP tonnes. It reported consumption in 2003 and 2004 of 714.500 ODP tonnes of those substances. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s baseline for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) is 94.050 ODP tonnes. It reported consumption in 2004 of 96.000 ODP tonnes of that substance. As a consequence, in 2003 the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2A of the Montreal Protocol, while in 2004 it was in non-compliance with its obligations under Articles 2A and 2H of the Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s halon and methyl bromide control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to maintain consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), at no more than the 2004 level of 714.500 ODP tonnes in 2005 and then to reduce halon consumption as follows:

            (i)   to 653.910 ODP tonnes in 2006;

            (ii)  to 316.533 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (iii) to phase out halon consumption by 1 January 2008, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

      (b)  to maintain consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) at no more than the 2004 level of 96.000 ODP tonnes in 2005 and 2006 and then to reduce methyl bromide consumption as follows:

            (i)   to 75.000 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (ii)  to phase out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2010, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

4.   to recall the commitment of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, contained in decision XV/36, to establish a system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including quotas, and to monitor its ban on imports of equipment using ozone depleting substances, introduced in 2003;

5.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to return to compliance with the Protocol’s halon and methyl bromide control measures in 2007, 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 halon and methyl bromide;

6.   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 Annex A, group II, controlled substances (halons) and the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide). to the degree that the Party 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 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 the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 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 Annex A, group II, controlled substances (halons) and the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/37).

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;

      (c)  to banning, by 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;

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 Mexico

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Mexico ratified the Montreal Protocol on 31 March 1988, the London Amendment on 11 October 1991 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 16 September 1994, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in February 1992. The Executive Committee has approved $83,209,107 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Mexico’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that Mexico has reported annual consumption for the Annex B, group II, controlled substance (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 89.540 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 9.376 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Mexico is therefore in non compliance with the carbon tetrachloride control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Mexico’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Mexico specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce carbon tetrachloride consumption from 89.540 ODP-tonnes in 2005 as follows:

            (i)   to 9.376 ODP-tonnes in 2008;

            (ii)  to zero ODP-tonnes in 2009;

      (b)  to monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone depleting substances, which includes import quotas;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Mexico to return to compliance with the Protocol in 2008 and to urge Mexico to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Mexico with regard to the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. to the degree that the Party 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, Mexico 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Mexico, 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 Meeting of 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 carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/30).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Micronesia

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Federated States of Micronesia ratified the Montreal Protocol on 6 September 1995 and the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments on 27 November 2001, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in March 2002. The Executive Committee has approved $74,680 from the Multilateral Fund to enable the Party’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that the Federated States of Micronesia has reported annual consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), for 2002, 2003 and 2004 of 1.876, 1.691 and 1.451 ODP tonnes respectively, which exceed the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 1.219 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances in each of those years, and that Federated States of Micronesia is therefore in non compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Federated States of Micronesia’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Federated States of Micronesia specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), from 1.451 ODP tonnes in 2004 as follows:

            (i)   to 1.351 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (ii)  to phase out consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), by 1 January 2006, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

      (b)  to introduce a system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including a quota system, by 1 January 2006;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Federated States of Micronesia to return to compliance in 2006, and to urge Federated States of Micronesia to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement the plan of action and phase out consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs);

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Federated States of Micronesia with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs). to the degree that the Party 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, Federated States of Micronesia 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 Federated States of Micronesia, 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 the controlled substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs), that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/32).

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;

5.       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;

      (c)  to banning, by 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;

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).

Subsequently, the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Nepal ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 6 July 1994. Nepal is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1998. The Executive Committee has approved $453,636 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to recall that in its decision XV/39, the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties had congratulated Nepal on seizing 74 ODP tonnes of imports of CFCs that had been imported in 2000 without an import license, and on reporting the quantity as illegal trade under the terms of decision XIV/7;

3.   to recall that, in paragraph 5 of decision XV/39, the Parties had stated that, if Nepal decided to release any of the seized quantity of CFCs on to 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 fulfil 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;

4.   to clarify the meaning of paragraph 5 of decision XV/39 to mean that Nepal would only be considered to be in non-compliance if the amount of CFCs released on to the market in any one year exceeded its permitted consumption level under the Protocol for that year;

5.   to note further that Nepal’s baseline for CFCs is 27 ODP tonnes;

6.   to note with appreciation Nepal’s submission of its plan of action to manage the release of the seized CFCs, and to note further that, under the plan, Nepal specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to release no more than the following amount of CFCs in each year as follows:

            (i)   27.0 ODP tonnes in 2004;

            (ii)  13.5 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (iii) 13.5 ODP tonnes in 2006;

            (iv) 4.05 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (v)  4.05 ODP tonnes in 2008;

            (vi) 4.00 ODP tonnes in 2009;

            (vii) zero in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

      (b)  to monitor its existing system for licensing imports of ozone-depleting substances, including quotas, introduced in 2001, which includes a commitment not to issue import licenses for CFCs, in order to remain in compliance with its plan of action;

      (c)  to report annually on the quantity of CFCs released pursuant to paragraph 6 (a) above;

      (d)  to ensure that any quantities of CFCs remaining after 2010 are not released on to its market except in compliance with Nepal’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol;

7.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 6 above will enable Nepal to remain in compliance;

8.   to monitor closely the progress of Nepal with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.16/17, Decision XVI/27).

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;

      (c)  to ban, by 1 January 2008, imports of ODS-using equipment;

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).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Oman

1.   to note that Oman has reported annual data for the controlled substance in Annex B, group III (methyl chloroform), for 2003 which are above its requirements for that substance. As a consequence, for 2003, Oman was in non-compliance with its obligations under Article 2E of the Montreal Protocol;

2.   to note that, in response to a request from the Implementation Committee for an explanation for its excess consumption and a plan of action to return it to compliance, Oman has introduced a ban on the import of methyl chloroform;

3.   that no action is required on this incident of non-compliance, but that Oman should ensure that a similar case does not occur again.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.16/17, Decision XVI/28

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Pakistan

1.   to note that Pakistan ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 18 December 1992 and the Copenhagen Amendment on 17 February 1995. Pakistan is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1996. The Executive Committee has approved $18,492,150 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note that, in accordance with decision XV/22 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties, Pakistan was requested to submit to the Implementation Committee a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance;

3.   to note with appreciation Pakistan’s submission of its plan of action, and to note also that, under the plan, Pakistan specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reducing halon consumption from 15.0 ODP tonnes in 2003 as follows:

            (i)   to 14.2 ODP tonnes in 2004;

            (ii)  to 7.1 ODP tonnes in 2005;

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

      (b)  to monitor its enhanced system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including quotas, introduced in 2004;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Pakistan to return to compliance by 2004, and to urge Pakistan 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 (halons);

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Pakistan with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of halons. to the degree that Pakistan 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, Pakistan 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Pakistan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Meeting of 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 halon (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.16/17, Decision XVI/29).

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Pakistan ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London Amendment on 18 December 1992, the Copenhagen Amendment on 17 February 1995 and the Montreal and Beijing Amendments on 2 September 2005, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1996. The Executive Committee has approved $20,827,626 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Pakistan’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that Pakistan has reported annual consumption for the Annex B, group II, controlled substance (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 148.500 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 61.930 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Pakistan is therefore in non compliance with the control measures for carbon tetrachloride under the Protocol;

3.   to note with appreciation Pakistan’s submission of a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures and to note that, under the plan, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Pakistan specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce carbon tetrachloride consumption from 148.500 ODP-tonnes in 2005 to 41.800 ODP tonnes in 2006;

      (b)  to monitor its system for licensing the import and export of ozone depleting substances, which includes import quotas;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Pakistan to return to compliance with the Protocol in 2006 and to urge Pakistan to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Pakistan with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. to the degree that the Party 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, Pakistan 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 Pakistan, 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 carbon tetrachloride that is the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/31).

Non-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;

      (c)  to banning, on or before 31 December 2004, imports of ODS-using equipment;

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).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Paraguay

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Paraguay ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London Amendment on 3 December 1992, the Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments on 27 April 2001 and the Beijing Amendment on 18 July 2006, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in February 1997. The Executive Committee has approved $1,768,840 from the Multilateral Fund to enable Paraguay’s compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 250.748 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 105.280 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Paraguay is therefore in non compliance with the CFC control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to note also that Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 6.842 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 0.090 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and that Paraguay is therefore in non compliance with the carbon tetrachloride control measures under the Protocol;

4.   to request Paraguay to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 31 March 2007, for consideration by the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its next meeting, a plan of action with time specific benchmarks to ensure a prompt return to compliance. Paraguay may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase out schedule included in its plan of action and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving phase-out;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Paraguay with regard to the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride and CFCs. to the degree that the Party 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, Paraguay 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Paraguay, 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 Meeting of 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 carbon tetrachloride and CFCs that are the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/32).

The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   That Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 250.7 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption of 105.3 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and was therefore in non compliance with the consumption control measures under the Montreal Protocol for CFCs in 2005,

2.   that Paraguay has reported annual consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 0.7 ODP tonnes, which exceeds its maximum allowable consumption of 0.1 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and was therefore in non compliance with the consumption control measures under the Montreal Protocol for carbon tetrachloride in 2005,

3.   to record with appreciation the submission by Paraguay of a plan of action to ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC and carbon tetrachloride control measures, under which, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Paraguay specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reducing CFC consumption to no greater than:

            (i)   31.6 ODP tonnes in 2007, 2008 and 2009;

            (ii)  zero ODP tonnes in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

      (b)  to reducing carbon tetrachloride consumption to no greater than:

            (i)   0.1 ODP tonnes in 2007, 2008 and 2009;

            (ii)  zero ODP tonnes in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

      (c)  to monitoring its import licensing and quota system for ozone depleting substances and to extending that system to carbon tetrachloride;

      (d)  to monitoring the implementation of its ban on the export of all ozone-depleting substances and the import of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, whether new or used, which use CFC-11 or CFC-12;

4.   to urge Paraguay to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its plan of action to phase out consumption of CFCs and carbon tetrachloride;

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Paraguay with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs and carbon tetrachloride. to the degree that the Party is working toward 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, Paraguay 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;

6.   to caution Paraguay in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance 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 the CFCs and carbon tetrachloride that are the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7, Decision XIX/22).

Non-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).

Subsequently, the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ratified the Montreal Protocol and the London and Copenhagen amendments on 2 December 1996. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee in 1998. The Executive Committee has approved $166,019 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note that, in accordance with decision XV/42 of the Fifteenth 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;

3.   to note with appreciation the submission by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines of its plan of action, and to note also that, under the plan, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reducing CFC consumption from 3.07 ODP tonnes in 2003 as follows:

            (i)   to 2.15 ODP tonnes in 2004;

            (ii)  to 1.39 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (iii) to 0.83 ODP tonnes in 2006;

            (iv) to 0.45 ODP tonnes in 2007;

            (v)  to 0.22 ODP tonnes in 2008;

            (vi) to 0.1 ODP tonnes in 2009;

            (vii) 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 ozone depleting substances and its ban on imports of ozone-depleting-substances-using equipment, introduced in 2003;

      (c)  to introducing an ozone depleting substances quota system by the last quarter of 2004, which will become effective from 1 January 2005;

4.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 3 above should enable Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to return to compliance by 2008, and to urge Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to work with the relevant Implementing Agencies to implement the plan of action and phase-out of consumption of ozone-depleting substances in Annex A, group I (CFCs);

5.   to monitor closely the progress of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines with regard to the implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs. to the degree that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 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, 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Meeting of 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.16/17, Decision XVI/30).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Saudi Arabia

The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   that Saudi Arabia reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) for 2005 of 27.6 ODP tonnes, which exceeds its maximum allowable consumption level of 0.5 ODP tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and is therefore presumed in the absence of further clarification to be in non compliance in 2005 with the control measures under the Montreal Protocol for methyl bromide;

2.   to request Saudi Arabia to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later than 29 February 2008, for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting, an explanation for its excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to ensure the Party’s prompt return to compliance. Saudi Arabia may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

3.   to monitor closely the progress of Saudi Arabia with regard to the phase-out of methyl bromide. To the degree that the Party is working toward 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, Saudi Arabia 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;

4.   to caution Saudi Arabia in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance that, in the event that it fails to return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of 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 the methyl bromide that is the subject of non compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7, Decision XIX/23).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Serbia

The Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Serbia has not reported the data required for the establishment of baselines for the controlled substances in Annex B (other CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform) for the years 1998 and 1999, as provided for by paragraphs 3 and 8 ter (d) of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol;

2.   to note that the failure to report such data places Serbia in non-compliance with its data reporting obligations under the Protocol until such time as the Secretariat receives the outstanding data;

3.   to stress that compliance by Serbia with the Protocol cannot be evaluated without the outstanding data;

4.   to acknowledge that Serbia has only recently ratified the amendments to the Protocol that require it to report data on the controlled substances indicated in paragraph 1 of the present decision and also that Serbia has recently experienced a considerable change in its national circumstances in connection with which it has undertaken to continue the legal personality of the former Serbia and Montenegro in respect of the Protocol for the territory under its control effective 3 June 2006, but also to note that the Party has received assistance with data collection from the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol through the Fund's implementing agencies;

5.   to urge Serbia to work together with the United Nations Environment Programme under that agency’s Compliance Assistance Programme and with other implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund to report the data, as a matter of urgency, to the Secretariat;

6.   to request the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol to review the situation of Serbia with respect to data reporting at its next meeting.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10, Decision XVIII/33).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Sierra Leone

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

1.   to note that Sierra Leone ratified the Montreal Protocol and all its amendments on 29 August 2001, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in December 2003. The Executive Committee has approved $660,021 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

2.   to note further that Sierra Leone has reported annual consumption of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), for 2004 of 18.45 ODP tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable consumption level of 16.00 ODP tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and that Sierra Leone is therefore in non compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

3.   to request Sierra Leone, as a matter of urgency, 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. Sierra Leone may wish to consider including in its plan of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule, a ban on imports of equipment using ozone depleting substances, and policy and regulatory instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out;

4.   to monitor closely the progress of Sierra Leone with regard to the phase-out of the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons). To the degree that the Party 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, Sierra Leone 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Sierra Leone, 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 Meeting of 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 the controlled substances in Annex A, group II (halons), that are the subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/11, Decision XVII/38).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Somalia

1.   to note that Somalia has reported annual data for Annex A, group II, ozone depleting substances (halons) for both 2002 and 2003 which are above its requirement for a freeze in consumption;

2.   to note further that, in the absence of further clarification, Somalia is presumed to be in non-compliance with the control measures under the Protocol;

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

4.   to monitor closely the progress of Somalia with regard to the phase-out of halons. To the degree that Somalia is working towards and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as Parties in good standing. In that regard, Somalia 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 Meeting of the Parties cautions Somalia, 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 Meeting of 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.16/17, Decision XVI/19).

Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Turkmenistan

1.   to note that Turkmenistan acceded to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol on 18 November 1993 and acceded to the London Amendment on 15 March 1994. The country is classified as a non-Article 5 Party under the Protocol and, for 1996, reported positive consumption of 29.6 ODP tonnes of Annex A and B substances, none of which was for essential uses exempted by the Parties. As a consequence, in 1996 Turkmenistan was in non-compliance with its control obligations under Articles 2A through 2E of the Montreal Protocol;

2.   to note with appreciation the work done by Turkmenistan in cooperation with the Global Environment Facility to develop a country programme and establish a phase-out plan to bring Turkmenistan into compliance with the Montreal Protocol in 2003;

3.   to note that Turkmenistan, in cooperation with the Global Environment Facility, had delineated the following draft benchmarks that could serve to measure progress in the phase-out process until 2003:

      (a)  1999: import of CFCs should not exceed 22 ODP tonnes;

      (b)  1 January 2000: import/export licensing system in place; bans on import of equipment using and containing ODS; import quota for CFCs in 2000 not exceeding 15 ODP tonnes (roughly 50 per cent compared to 1996)

      (c)  1 January 2000: ban on the import of all Annex A and B substances except CFCs listed in Annex A (1);

      (d)  1 January 2000: import quota for CFCs in 2001 not exceeding 10 ODP tonnes (-66 per cent compared to 1996); effective system for monitoring and controlling ODS trade in place and working;

      (e)  1 July 2001: recovery and recycling and training projects completed;

      (f)  1 January 2002: import quota for CFCs in 2002 not to exceed 6 ODP tonnes (-80 per cent compared to 1996);

      (g)  1 January 2003: total prohibition of imports of Annex A and B substances/zero quota; completion of Global Environment Facility project.

4.   to monitor closely the progress of Turkmenistan with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, particularly towards meeting the specific commitments noted above and, in this regard, to request that Turkmenistan submit a complete copy of its country programme when approved, including the specific benchmarks, to the Implementation Committee, through the Ozone Secretariat, for its consideration at its next meeting. To the degree that Turkmenistan is working towards and meeting the specific time based commitments noted above and continues to report data annually demonstrating a decrease in imports and consumption, Turkmenistan should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In this regard, Turkmenistan 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. Through this decision, however, the Parties caution Turkmenistan, in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures, that in the event that the country fails to meet the commitments noted above in the times specified, the Parties shall consider measures, consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. These measures could include the possibility of actions that may be available under Article 4, designed to ensure 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.11/10, Decision XI/25).

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;

      (c)  to introducing a ban on imports of ODS-using equipment 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).

The Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties decided:

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 paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1993. Since approval of the country programme, the Executive Committee has approved $5,457,124 from the Multilateral Fund to enable compliance in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol;

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

3.   to recall further that Uruguay had submitted a plan of action to ensure a prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s methyl bromide control measures, which was contained in decision XV/44 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties;

4.   to note that Uruguay reported consumption of 11.1 ODP tonnes of methyl bromide in 2004. This level of consumption, while consistent with the requirement that Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol freeze their methyl bromide consumption in 2004 at their baseline level, was inconsistent with the Party’s commitment contained in decision XV/44 to reduce its methyl bromide consumption to a level no greater that 4 ODP tonnes in 2004;

5.   to note with appreciation, however, that Uruguay submitted a revised plan of action for methyl bromide early phase-out in controlled uses, and to note, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, that under the revised plan Uruguay specifically commits itself:

      (a)  to reduce methyl bromide consumption from 11.1 ODP tonnes in 2004 as follows:

            (i)   to 8.9 ODP tonnes in 2005;

            (ii)  to 8.9 ODP tonnes in 2006;

            (iii) to 8.9 ODP tonnes in 2009;

            (iv) to 6.0 ODP tonnes in 2010;

            (v)  to 6.0 ODP tonnes in 2011;

            (vi) to 6.0 ODP tonnes in 2012;

            (vii) to phase out methyl bromide consumption by 1 January 2013, save for critical uses that may be authorized by the Parties;

      (b)  to monitor its system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting substances, including quotas;

6.   to note that the measures listed in paragraph 5 above should enable Uruguay to maintain compliance 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 (methyl bromide);

7.   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 substance 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.17/11, Decision XVII/39).

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).