EXPEDITED PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL PRESENTATION

EXPEDITED PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL PRESENTATION BY Mr. Alistair Mc. Glone

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW • Current Montreal Protocol procedure for adding ODS • Principles for an expedited mechanism • Proposed expedited mechanism for the Montreal Protocol • Conclusions

CURRENT PROTOCOL PROCEDURE FOR ADDING ODS Protocol Article 2 par. 10: Based on the assessments in Article 6 of this Protocol and in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 9 of the Convention, the Parties may decide: (a) whether any substances, and if so which, should be added to or removed from any annex to this Protocol, and (b) The mechanism, scope and timing of the control measures that should apply to those substances.

CURRENT PROTOCOL PROCEDURE: AMENDMENT AND RATIFICATION • Any Party may propose amendments to the Protocol, amendments are to be adopted at a Meeting of the Parties • Strive for consensus; if cannot be reached, an amendment may be adopted by 2/3 of Parties present and voting • Entry into force occurs on 90 th day after ratification by 2/3 of Protocol Parties, but only for those Parties. If a Party submits ratification after entry into force, an amendment enters into force for that Party 90 days after it submits ratification

PROTOCOL’S ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM The adjustment mechanism effectuates light alterations in an Annex. They are based on Article 6 assessments and solely allow changes in ODP for controlled substances and for the control schedule for controlled substances. Once an adjustment is being adopted, the adjustment is binding on all Parties and enters into force 6 months after circulation by UNEP

CURRENT PROTOCOL PROCEDURE: TIMING FOR ADDING ODS • Party notifies Secretariat of new ODS after 2 year period required for submission of peer-reviewed research assessment • SAP assessment of ODP: additional 6 years • TEAP assessment: additional 1 year • Parties adopt amendment: additional 1 year • Amendment enters into force: additional 2 years • Amendment binds 50 % of the Parties: additional 3 years • Amendment binds 90 % of the Parties: additional 5 -7 years

CURRENT PROTOCOL PROCEDURE HISTORIC EXAMPLES HCFCs: 1986: first discussed by Parties 1990: London Amendment adopted 1992: Amendment enters into force 1994: ratified by 80 Parties August 2004: ratified by 175 of 188 Parties (93%)

CURRENT PROTOCOL PROCEDURE HISTORIC EXAMPLES Methyl bromide: 1989: first discussed by Parties 1992: Copenhagen Amendment adopted 1994: Amendment enters into force 1998: ratified by 80 Parties August 2004: ratified by 164 of 188 Parties (87%)

CURRENT PROTOCOL PROCEDURE: HISTORIC EXAMPLES Bromochloromethane: 1997: first discussed by Parties 1999: Beijing Amendment adopted 2002: Amendment enters into force August 2004: ratified by 83 of 188 Parties (44%)

CURRENT PROCEDURE: EXAMPLES OF ODS NOT YET CONTROLLED N-Propyl bromide: 1997: reported to the Secretariat Estimated ODP: . 0033 -. 111 Halon – 1202: 1998: first discussed by Parties Estimated ODP: 1. 25 1 -bromo-3 -chloro-propane: 2001: reported to the Secretariat Estimated ODP: . 05

WHY INTRODUCE AN EXPEDITED PROCEDURE ? Determined to protect the ozone layer by taking precautionary measures to control equitably total global emissions of substances that deplete it, with the ultimate objective of their elimination on the basis of developments in scientific knowledge, taking into account technical and economic considerations and bearing in mind the developmental needs of developing countries Montreal Protocol (Preamble)

EXPEDITED PROCEDURES IN OTHER MEAs: Of 11 Multilateral Environmental Agreements analyzed by the Secretariat and the European Commission, 8 use expedited procedures for adding to protective measures.

POSSIBLE EXPEDITED MECHANISM FOR MONTREAL PROTOCOL Principles for an expedited mechanism: • Responsive to scientific, technical and economic assessment of new ODS • Fast, widespread application of modifications to lists of controlled substances • Responsive to new information, flexibility in timing and scope of control • Consistent with established international precedent

THE PROPOSED EXPEDITED MECHANISM • Objective • Operation of the procedure • The possibility to ‘opt out’

THE PROPOSED EXPEDITED MECHANISM • No consequences for the regular amendment procedure • No creation of an additional layer of commitments or grouping of Parties • Entry into force of the expedited procedure itself • Relationship of the expedited procedure with future substantive amendments • The expedited procedure and control measures related to trade

CONCLUSIONS Current Montreal Protocol Procedure for adding ODS is inadequate • Several year delay from identification of ODS to effective control by critical mass of Parties • New substances are being created and marketed • Protection of the ozone layer suffers It may be possible to modify the procedure in a manner that • Enhances protection of the ozone layer • Does not unduly complicate implementation of the Protocol