Issues for Discussion by and Information for the Attention of the Open-Ended Working Group

UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 UNITED NATIONS EP

UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 Distr.: General 3 May 2017 Original: English

United Nations Environment Programme

Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer Thirty-ninth meeting Bangkok, 11–14 July 2017 Items 3–9 of the provisional agenda*

Issues for discussion by and information for the attention of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at its thirty-ninth meeting

Note by the Secretariat

I. Introduction 1. The present note provides an overview of the substantive issues on the provisional agenda for the thirty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. 2. Further information on some of the agenda items will be provided in an addendum to the present note (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2/Add.1) once reports by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel have been finalized. The reports directly relevant to the items on the provisional agenda include a replenishment study, an assessment and recommendations on essential- and critical-use nominations, a report on the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and an assessment of safety standards. The addendum will contain summaries of those reports.

II. Summary of issues for discussion by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-ninth meeting Agenda item 3 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down hydrofluorocarbons 3. By its decision XXVIII/1, the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, held in Kigali from 10 to 15 October 2016, adopted the Kigali Amendment to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) listed in Annex F to the amended Protocol. The Amendment will enter into force on 1 January 2019, provided that at least 20 instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of the Amendment have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations by that date by parties to the Protocol. In the event that the condition has not been fulfilled by that date, the Amendment will enter into force on the ninetieth day following the date on which the

** UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/1. 1 UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 condition has been fulfilled.1 The information document on the operational plan for the Kigali Amendment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/INF/1) also contains relevant information on the provisions of the Amendment and decision XXVIII/2. (a) Data reporting under Article 7 and related issues 4. The amended Montreal Protocol includes the following provisions requiring new reporting of data and information by the parties: (a) Paragraph 2 of Article 7 requires each party to report statistical data on production, imports and exports of each HFC listed in Annex F for the relevant years as follows:  2011 to 2013 for non-Article 5 parties2  2020 to 2022 for Article 5, group 1 parties3  2024 to 2026 for Article 5, group 2 parties4 or the best possible estimates where actual data are not available, not later than three months after the date when the provisions set out in the Protocol with regard to the substances in Annex F enter into force for that party. The data reported for the years specified above contribute to the baselines for measuring the HFC phase-down; (b) Paragraph 3 of Article 7 requires each party to report statistical data on production, amounts used for feedstocks, amounts destroyed by technologies approved by the parties, and imports from and exports to parties and non-parties, respectively, for the year of entry into force of provisions of Annex F for that party and annually thereafter. Data are to be reported not later than nine months after the end of the year to which the data relate; (c) Paragraph 3 ter of Article 7 requires each party to report statistical data on its annual emissions of HFC- 23 per facility that is manufacturing substances listed in Annex C, Group I, or Annex F. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 2J of the Amendment require that each party manufacturing substances listed in Annex C, Group I, or Annex F ensure that, beginning in 2020, emissions of HFC-23 generated in each facility are destroyed to the extent practicable using only technology approved by the parties. 5. The existing reporting forms and associated instructions and guidelines have been updated to include the new requirements for reporting of data and information, and the revised versions can be found in the note by the Secretariat on data reporting issues (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/3). The Open-ended Working Group may wish to consider the revised forms and associated instructions and guidelines and provide guidance to the Secretariat with a view to the eventual approval of the revised forms by the Meeting of the Parties in 2018 at the latest. This will enable parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol (non-Article 5 parties) to use the updated forms to report the baseline data in 2019. 6. The note by the Secretariat on data reporting issues also outlines a number of issues related to data reporting for information and consideration by the parties, including: (d) Timeline for reporting of baseline data by parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 (Article 5 parties); (e) Reporting of mixtures and blends containing HFCs; (f) Work by the Scientific Assessment Panel on updating the global-warming potential of the substances in Group I of Annex A, Annex C and Annex F to the Montreal Protocol (see paras. 8–10 below); (g) Global-warming-potential values for the most commercially viable isomers of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124; (h) Trade with non-parties: reporting requirements versus trade restrictions.

1 See article IV of the Amendment, on entry into force. 2 For five non-Article 5 parties (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), the baseline comprises HFC production or consumption plus 25 per cent of the HCFC baseline. For the rest of the non-Article 5 parties, the baseline comprises HFC production or consumption plus 15 per cent of the HCFC baseline. 3 Article 5 parties that are not in group 2 (see the 10 parties listed in footnote 4 below). 4 Bahrain, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 7. For the information of the parties, the Secretariat has also prepared a briefing note on the 5 calculation of HFC production and consumption in CO2 equivalent that outlines the steps the Secretariat will take to derive the calculated levels of consumption and production, and the baselines, of Annex F substances using global-warming-potential values. (b) Work by the Scientific Assessment Panel on updating the global-warming potential of the substances in Group I of Annex A, Annex C and Annex F to the Montreal Protocol 8. Subparagraph 9 (a) (ii) of Article 2 of the amended Montreal Protocol states that, on the basis of the assessments made pursuant to Article 6, the parties may decide whether “adjustments to the global warming potentials specified in Group I of Annex A, Annex C and Annex F should be made and, if so, what the adjustments should be”. 9. Following the adoption of the Kigali Amendment by the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties, a representative reminded the Meeting of the Parties that it had been agreed in the contact group on HFCs that, in order to give effect to the new subparagraph 9 (a) (ii) of Article 2, the Scientific Assessment Panel would need to begin the work required to provide the Meeting of the Parties with the information it would require on the global-warming potential of the substances listed in Group I of Annex A, Annex C and Annex F and to report on its progress in that regard to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-ninth meeting. 10. The Scientific Assessment Panel is expected to inform the parties on the issue, which is addressed in more detail in the note by the Secretariat on data reporting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/3, paras. 18–23) for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group. (c) Process for approving destruction technologies for substances in Annex F to the Montreal Protocol 11. Paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol defines “production” of controlled substances, for the purpose of the Protocol, as “the amount of controlled substances produced, minus the amount destroyed by technologies to be approved by the parties and minus the amount entirely used as feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals”. In the amended Protocol, Annex F substances are controlled substances to which the definition applies. 12. When the parties begin implementing the control measures to phase down Annex F substances, they may destroy the unwanted amounts using technologies approved by the parties. Those destroyed amounts will be subtracted from calculated production by the Secretariat. The earliest control measure starts in 2019 for non-Article 5 parties to reduce the production and consumption of Annex F substances by 10 per cent. To enable those parties to use the provisions of the Protocol applicable to the destruction of controlled substances by approved technologies as early as 2019, parties may wish to begin the process of identifying and approving destruction technologies for HFCs. 13. Paragraph 6 of Article 2J of the amended Protocol requires that each party manufacturing substances listed in Annex C, Group I, or Annex F should destroy emissions of HFC-23 (Annex F, Group II substance) generated in each facility that produces Annex C, Group I, or Annex F substances, to the extent practicable using technologies approved by the parties. Paragraph 7 of Article 2J further states that any such destruction shall occur only by technologies approved by the parties. The provisions are applicable to both non-Article 5 and Article 5 parties. Paragraph 6 specifies that the destruction of the HFC-23 emissions will begin in 2020. 14. In the past, parties have approved destruction technologies for other controlled substances, on the basis of assessments and recommendations of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. The latest decision by the parties approving destruction technologies for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol is decision XXIII/12,6 and the annex to that decision contains the updated list of destruction technologies approved by the parties for Annex A, Groups I and II, Annex B, Groups I, II and III, and Annex C, Group I. No destruction technologies have been approved yet for methyl bromide, an Annex E substance. Furthermore, by decision XV/9, the parties have approved a code of good housekeeping procedures for operating destruction facilities and a list of hazardous substances that may be emitted or discharged during the destruction process and to which parties need to pay particular attention.

5 http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg-39/presession. 6 The first list of destruction technologies was contained in annex VI to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and was subsequently modified by decisions V/26, VII/35 and XIV/6. 3 UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 15. As has been done in the past, parties may wish to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to work towards identifying technologies that adequately destroy HFCs, in order to enable parties to approve a list of destruction technologies at the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties in 2018 at the latest. This would enable parties using those technologies to report amounts of HFCs destroyed from 2019 onward. Technologies for destroying emissions of HFC-23 may be approved earlier than the end of 2019 to enable parties to comply with the provisions for emission destruction starting on 1 January 2020. Parties may also wish to consider requesting the Panel to update the existing list of destruction technologies and identify emerging new destruction technologies for ozone-depleting substances such as methyl bromide. (d) Progress by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in relation to decision XXVIII/2 16. At the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties it was decided to maintain the Multilateral Fund as the financial mechanism, and that sufficient additional financial resources would be provided by nonArticle 5 parties to offset costs arising out of HFC obligations for Article 5 parties, as reflected in decision XXVIII/2. 17. In paragraph 10 of that decision, the parties requested the Executive Committee to develop, within two years of the adoption of the Kigali Amendment, guidelines for financing the phase-down of HFC consumption and production, and to present those guidelines for the parties’ views and input before their finalization. 18. Following the parties’ adoption of the Kigali Amendment, the Executive Committee took immediate action at its seventy-seventh meeting, held in Montreal, Canada, from 28 November to 2 December 2016, during which it considered issues relevant to its work arising from the TwentyEighth Meeting of the Parties (see UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/77/70/Rev.1). Inter alia, the Fund secretariat presented an overview of HFC consumption and production in Article 5 countries; the elements of guidelines for financing the phase-down of HFCs drawing on the cost guidelines for stage I and stage II of HCFC phase-out management plans; and a summary of possible actions by the Executive Committee with regard to the HFC phase-down. The Executive Committee decided to hold a four-day special meeting early in 2017 to address matters related to the Amendment arising from decision XXVIII/2 and requested the Fund secretariat to prepare a document containing preliminary information and addressing (i) available information on HFC consumption and production, as well as on HFC 23 by-products; (ii) enabling activities required to assist Article 5 countries in commencing their reporting and regulatory activities in relation to the HFC control measures; (iii) key issues related to HFC-23 by-product control technologies; (iv) issues that the Executive Committee might want to consider in relation to existing HCFC phase-out activities; and (v) information relevant to the development of the cost guidelines. Executive Committee members at the seventy-seventh meeting were invited to share relevant information with the Fund secretariat.7 19. At its seventy-eighth meeting, held in Montreal from 4 to 7 April 2017, the Executive Committee made further progress in addressing the parties’ requests contained in decision XXVIII/2.8 The Committee considered a document on draft criteria for funding, which contained a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions and practice and included a proposed template for the draft cost guidelines for the phase-down of HFCs.9 Discussions focused on overarching principles and timelines; flexibility in implementation; the cut-off date for eligible capacity; second and third conversions; sustained aggregate reductions in HFC consumption and production; eligible incremental costs in the consumption manufacturing sector, the production sector and the refrigeration servicing sector, and other costs; energy efficiency; capacity-building to address safety; disposal; and the eligibility of Annex F substances subject to high-ambient-temperature exemptions. 20. The Executive Committee agreed that it would consider approving a limited number of HFC-related projects in the manufacturing sector only, to allow the Committee to gain experience with the incremental capital and operating costs that might be associated with phasing down HFCs in Article

7 The record of discussion and the decisions of the Executive Committee are set out in the report of the seventyseventh meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/77/76, available from http://multilateralfund.org/77/pages/Final%20Report.aspx). 8 The record of discussion and the decisions of the Executive Committee are set out in the report of the seventyeighth meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/78/11, available from http://www.multilateralfund.org/78/pages/Final%20report.aspx). 9 UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/78/5 and Corr.1. UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 5 countries. At its seventy-ninth meeting, the Committee will further consider pending issues related to eligible incremental costs; energy efficiency; capacity-building to address safety; disposal; and eligibility of Annex F substances subject to highambient-temperature exemptions. 21. With regard to enabling activities, the Executive Committee requested the Fund secretariat to prepare a document providing draft guidelines on enabling activities for consideration at the seventyninth meeting. The Committee would consider increasing funding for institutional strengthening at a future meeting in accordance with paragraph 20 of decision XXVIII/2. 22. The Executive Committee considered key aspects of HFC-23 by-product control technologies based on a document prepared by the Fund secretariat10 and invited all relevant HCFC-22 producing parties to provide, on a voluntary basis, information on quantities of HFC-23 in facilities producing HCFC-22, and their experience in controlling and monitoring HFC-23 by-product emissions, no later than 15 May 2017. 23. Two more meetings of the Executive Committee are planned for 2017: the seventy-ninth meeting from 3 to 7 July 2017, and the eightieth meeting from 13 to 17 November 2017, where discussions in relation to decision XXVIII/2 will continue. The summary presented here is only for the information of the parties, and a report by the chair of the Executive Committee on the progress made in accordance with the relevant paragraphs of decision XXVIII/2 will be provided at the Meeting of the Parties. Agenda item 4 Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the triennium 2018–2020, including the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (decision XXVIII/5) 24. In decision XXVIII/5, on the terms of reference for the study on the 2018–2020 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the parties requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report for submission to the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Parties, through the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-ninth meeting, to enable the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Parties to adopt a decision on the appropriate level of the 2018–2020 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund. In preparing the report the Panel was requested to take into account, among other things: (i) All control measures and relevant decisions agreed upon by the parties and the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, in particular those pertaining to the special needs of lowvolume- consuming and very-low-volume-consuming countries, in addition to small and medium-sized enterprises, and the decisions of the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties and the Executive Committee at its meetings, up to and including its seventy-eighth meeting, insofar as those decisions will necessitate expenditure by the Multilateral Fund during the period 2018–2020; (j) The need to allocate resources to enable all Article 5 parties to achieve and/or maintain compliance with Articles 2A–2E, 2G, 2H, 2I and 2J of the Protocol; (k) The need to allocate resources to enable all Article 5 parties to meet compliance obligations relevant in the replenishment period 2018–2020 in respect of Article 2F of the Protocol, providing support for a transition to low- or zero-global-warming-potential alternatives in HCFC phase- out, taking into account decision XIX/6 of the Meeting of the Parties and the extended commitments made by Article 5 parties under approved HCFC phase-out management plans; (l) Rules and guidelines agreed upon by the Executive Committee at all its meetings, up to and including its seventy-eighth meeting, for determining eligibility for the funding of investment projects and noninvestment projects, including, but not limited to, institutional strengthening. 25. The parties also decided by the same decision that the Panel’s report should also include the following information: (i) indicative figures for the resources within the estimated funding required for phasing out HCFCs that could be associated with enabling Article 5 parties to encourage the use of low- or zero-global-warming-potential alternatives and indicative figures for any additional resources that would be needed to further encourage the use of low- or zero-global-warming-potential alternatives; (ii) the need for additional resources to enable Article 5 parties to carry out initial activities related to the phase-down of HFCs listed under Annex F and controlled under Article 2J; and (iii) indicative figures

10 UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/78/9 and Corr.1. 5 UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 for the periods 2021–2023 and 2024–2026 to support a stable and sufficient level of funding, on the understanding that those figures will be updated in subsequent replenishment studies. 26. In response to decision XXVIII/5, the Panel established a replenishment task force. The report of the task force will be issued as part of the Panel’s 2017 report. A summary of the task force report will be included in the addendum to the present document. 27. The Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Parties is expected to adopt a decision on the appropriate level of the 2018–2020 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund. Agenda item 5 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 2017 report (volumes I and II) 28. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is expected to finalize its 2017 report in early May 2017. The report will comprise four volumes, out of which volumes I and II will address the following issues: (a) Volume I. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 2017 Progress Report (i) Progress reports by the Panel’s technical options committees (ii) Report on essential use nominations (iii) Issues related to the phase-out of HCFCs (iv) Membership of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees (v) Matrix of expertise needed on the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (b) Volume II. May 2017 critical-use nominations report 29. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will present volumes I and II of its 2017 report under agenda item 5. The presentation will cover various issues under the agenda items of the thirtyninth meeting. The Panel will give separate presentations on its report on the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the triennium 2018–2020, prepared in response to decision XXVIII/5, under agenda item 4, and its report on safety standards relevant to low-global-warming-potential alternatives, prepared in response to decision XXVIII/4, under agenda item 6. 30. The information and recommendations of the Panel set out in its 2017 report that are relevant to matters on the provisional agenda for the thirty-ninth meeting will be summarized in an addendum to the present note to be made available before the meeting. (a) Nominations for essential-use exemptions for 2018 31. In accordance with decision IV/25, China submitted one request for an essential-use exemption, for the use of 65 tonnes of carbon tetrachloride for the testing of oil in water (a laboratory and analytical use), for 2018. The Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee met from 1 to 3 March 2017 in Manchester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and reviewed, among other things, the request by China. The Committee’s interim evaluation of and recommendation on China’s request will be included in the 2017 report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and summarized in the addendum to the present note. No other nominations for essential uses were received in 2017. (b) Nominations for critical-use exemptions for 2018 and 2019 32. In 2017, three parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 (Argentina, China and South Africa) submitted six nominations for critical-use exemptions in 2018, and two non-Article 5 parties (Australia and Canada) submitted one nomination each for 2019 and 2018, respectively. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee met in Johannesburg and Durban, South Africa, from 3 to 7 April 2017 and, among other things, reviewed the critical-use nominations as well as additional information submitted by the nominating parties in response to the first round of questions by the Committee. The interim recommendations on the quantities of methyl bromide eligible for exemption will be included in the report of the Committee to be made available as part of the 2017 report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. The interim recommendations and associated information will be summarized in the addendum to the present note. The parties submitting UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 critical-use exemption nominations in 2017 and the quantities that they have nominated for 2018 and 2019 are listed in the table below. Summary of the nominations for 2018 and 2019 criticaluse exemptions for methyl bromide submitted in 2017 (tonnes)a Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and sectors Nomination for 2018 Nomination for 2019 1. Australia Strawberry runners 28.970 2. Canada Strawberry runners 5.261 Subtotal 5.261 28.970

Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and sectors Nomination for 2018 3. Argentina Tomato (protected) 75.400 Strawberry fruit (open field) 45.300 4. China Ginger open field 74.617 Ginger protected 18.360 5. South Africa Mills 5.000 Structures 45.000 Subtotal 263.677 GRAND TOTAL 268.938 28.970 a Tonne = metric ton. (c) The phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (decision XXVIII/8) 33. The non-Article 5 parties are taking measures to reduce and eventually phase out the production and consumption of HCFCs by 1 January 2020. However, since Article 5 parties may require access to HCFCs produced by non-Article 5 parties to satisfy their basic domestic needs after 2020, in decision XIX/6 the Meeting of the Parties decided to address certain issues related to the phase-out of HCFCs. As specified in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the decision, they decided in particular to: (m) Address the possibilities or need for essential-use exemptions for HCFCs, no later than 2015 for non-Article 5 parties and no later than 2020 for Article 5 parties; (n) Review in 2015 the need for the 0.5 per cent for servicing provided for in paragraph 3 of the same decision, which specifies the reduction steps for non-Article 5 parties, and review in 2025 the need for the annual average of 2.5 per cent for servicing provided for in paragraph 4 of the same decision, which specifies the HCFC reduction steps for Article 5 parties; (o) Allow for up to 10 per cent of baseline levels of HCFC production until 2020 and, for the period after that, consider no later than 2015 further reductions of production, in order to satisfy basic domestic needs. 34. The three issues were discussed at the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties in 2015 and the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties in 2016, resulting in decisions XXVII/5 and XXVIII/8, respectively. By decision XXVIII/8, which called for continuation of the activities set out in decision XXVII/5, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel was requested, in relation to HCFCs listed in Annex C of the Montreal Protocol, to continue to assess sectors, including subsectors, if any, where essential uses for nonArticle 5 parties might be needed after 1 January 2020, including estimates of the volumes of HCFCs that might be needed; to continue to assess the servicing requirements for refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment and any other possible needs in other sectors between 2020 and 2030 for non-Article 5 parties; and to continue to review recent volumes of production of each of the HCFCs to satisfy basic domestic needs and make projected estimates of such future production and estimated needs of Article 5 parties to satisfy basic domestic needs beyond 1 January 2020. The Panel

7 UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 was also requested to report on its assessment to the Openended Working Group at its thirty-ninth meeting, in 2017. 35. In paragraph 2 of the same decision, parties were invited to provide relevant information to the Ozone Secretariat by 15 March 2017 for inclusion in the Panel’s assessment. In response to the invitation, the Secretariat received information from seven parties (Armenia, the European Union, Jamaica, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico and the United States of America) and forwarded it to the Panel for its consideration. The Panel’s report on the issue is being finalized. The Secretariat will include a summary in the addendum to the present note. (d) Organizational and other matters 36. The annual report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel normally contains information on organizational and administrative issues relating to the work of the Panel and its technical options committees. The Secretariat will include, in the addendum to the present note, any organizational and administrative issues discussed in the Panel’s report when it becomes available. Agenda item 6 Safety standards relevant to low-global-warming-potential alternatives (decision XXVIII/4) (a) Results of the workshop on safety standards relevant to the safe use of low-global-warming-potential alternatives 37. The Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties adopted decision XXVIII/4 on the establishment of regular consultations on safety standards. In paragraph 2 of the decision, the parties requested the Ozone Secretariat to organize a workshop on safety standards relevant to the safe use of low-global-warming-potential alternatives back to back with the thirty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, within existing resources. 38. In the preambular paragraphs of the decision, the parties recognized the importance of receiving timely updates of international standards for flammable low-global-warming-potential refrigerants and supported the promotion of actions allowing for the safe market introduction, manufacturing, operation, maintenance and handling of zero- and low-global-warming-potential refrigerants that are alternatives to HCFCs and HFCs. The parties also aimed to support the timely revision of relevant standards in a technology-neutral manner to enable the safe use and market penetration of low-global-warming- potential alternatives. 39. The requested workshop will be held on 10 July 2017, immediately prior to the thirty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. The workshop will provide the opportunity for informed discussions on technical and policy aspects related to the safe use of flammable refrigerants as alternatives in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump sectors, focusing on flammability and issues related to the setting of standards. The workshop will not cover toxicity or high pressure issues, nor will it address extensively the safe handling of flammable refrigerants by technicians. 40. The workshop will involve wide stakeholder participation, including representatives of standards organizations, industries, institutions and associations, as well as technical experts. Overview speakers and panellists will provide technical and policy clarifications on the process of setting and revising standards. 41. For the purpose of the workshop and to help facilitate the implementation of the decision, the Secretariat has initiated communication and in some cases held consultations with the secretariats of international, regional and national standards bodies, such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the European Committee for Standardization, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization , UL (formerly known as Underwriters Laboratories), the American National Standards Institute and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, on their participation in the workshop and possible cooperation in the future on issues relating to safety standards. Representatives of such organizations have been invited to participate in the workshop with a view to sharing relevant information with the parties.11

11 The agenda of the workshop is available from http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/workshops/safety-and- standards/presession/SitePages/Home.aspx. UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 42. The conclusions of the workshop will be presented to the Open-ended Working Group, which may wish to discuss and consider further actions to be taken on safety standards and make recommendations as appropriate. (b) Report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on safety standards 43. In its decision XXVIII/4, the Twenty-Eighth Meeting also requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to establish a task force that includes outside experts as needed, to: (p) Liaise and coordinate with standards organizations, including IEC, to support the timely revision of IEC standard 60335-2-40 and ensure that the requirements for the A2, A2L and A3 categories are revised synchronously using a fair, inclusive and scientifically sound approach; (q) Submit to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-ninth meeting a report on safety standards relevant for low-global-warming-potential alternatives, including on the following: (q.i) Progress in the revision of international safety standards by IEC, ISO and other international standards bodies; (q.ii) Information concerning tests and/or risk assessments and their results relevant to safety standards; (q.iii) Assessment of the implications of international standards for the implementation of the decisions of the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs and HFC control measures, and recommendations to the parties; (r) Provide relevant findings to the standards bodies. 44. In accordance with the decision, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel established a task force to prepare a report responding to the request of the parties. The report of the task force will be issued as part of the Panel’s 2017 report. A summary of the task force report will be included in the addendum to the present document. 45. In addition, in paragraph 4 of the decision, parties were invited to submit to the Ozone Secretariat by the end of 2016 information on their domestic safety standards relevant to the use of low-global- warming-potential flammable refrigerants. The Secretariat brought this matter to the attention of all parties in two communications, first by email on 4 November 2016 and then in a letter dated 8 December 2016 regarding the decisions of the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties and enclosing a template for submitting the information on safety standards. The template was prepared by the Secretariat at the request of a party to facilitate the submission of relevant information. The use of the template was intended to be optional. 46. Eighteen parties12 submitted information, and those submissions have been compiled in an information document for the thirty-ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/INF/4). The submissions were also shared with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its task force on safety standards to enable them to take that information into consideration in preparing the report requested by decision XXVIII/4. Agenda item 7 Energy efficiency (decision XXVIII/3) 47. The Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties adopted decision XXVIII/3 on energy efficiency. Recognizing that HFC phase-down would present additional opportunities to catalyse and secure improvements in energy efficiency of appliances and equipment in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sectors, and that such improvements in energy efficiency could deliver a variety of co-benefits for sustainable development, the parties decided to request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review energy efficiency opportunities in the refrigeration and air-conditioning and heat-pump sectors related to a transition to climate-friendly alternatives, including not-in-kind options (para. 1), and invited parties to submit to the Ozone Secretariat by May 2017, on a voluntary basis, relevant information on energy efficiency innovations in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat- pump sectors (para. 2).

12 Andorra, Armenia, Barbados, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, European Union, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Malaysia, Maldives, Panama, Serbia, Singapore, the United States of America and Zimbabwe. 9 UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 48. In a communication sent to all parties by the Secretariat on 17 March 2017 and enclosing a set of questions to help parties prepare their submissions, the parties were invited to submit information in accordance with the decision, on a voluntary basis. 49. Six parties13 have submitted information (see UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/INF/5). The submissions were shared with the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to enable the panel to assess the information, as requested in paragraph 3 of the decision, and report thereon to the TwentyNinth Meeting of the Parties, in November 2017. 50. The Open-ended Working Group may wish to note the progress in implementing the decision and have a preliminary discussion pending the submission of the report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for consideration by the TwentyNinth Meeting of the Parties. Agenda item 8 Consideration of hydrofluorocarbons not listed in Annex F to the Montreal Protocol 51. During the adoption of the Kigali Amendment, the co-chair of the contact group reported that during the group’s discussions two parties (Switzerland and Norway) had proposed the adoption of a decision on listing all potential new HFCs. The proponents had agreed to withdraw the proposed decision owing to a lack of time to address it at that meeting but indicated that they would introduce it again at another meeting in 2017 and asked the Secretariat to include the item on the agenda of the next meeting. 52. The proposal that had been withdrawn at the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties is set out in the annex to the present document for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group. 53. In considering the proposal, parties may wish to recall the procedure that also exists for identifying new substances that may have the potential to deplete the ozone layer and have the likelihood of being produced substantially. The main relevant decisions on the issue are decisions IX/24, X/8, XI/19 and XIII/5.14 54. The past cases of dealing with new substances were n-propyl bromide (see decisions XIII/7 (2001) and XVIII/11 (2006)) and RC-316c (see decision XXIV/10, (2012)). The assessments of ozone- depleting potential and market significance were made by the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, respectively. The use of n-propyl bromide is still being monitored by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and reported on in its annual progress report. As is noted in decision XXIV/10, the Scientific Assessment Panel has developed a procedure for assessing ozone-depletion potential for new substances, which was presented at the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties. The parties have not deemed it necessary to add n-propyl bromide or RC-316c as controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol. Agenda item 9 Eligibility for technical and financial assistance under the Multilateral Fund: United Arab Emirates 55. At the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties, the representative of the United Arab Emirates reported that his country would introduce a draft decision for discussion at Montreal Protocol meetings in 2017. He said his country had been among the first to ratify the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol, had been active in timely phasing out of ozonedepleting substances and had ratified all the amendments to the Protocol. It had achieved all that without receiving financial or technical assistance from the Multilateral Fund, despite being eligible for such assistance under Articles 5 and 10 of the Protocol. He added that the United Arab Emirates was proud to have hosted the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Parties, at which the Dubai pathway on HFCs had been adopted. It fully supported the phase-down of HFCs but feared that such a phase-down would pose additional challenges beyond the original scope of the Montreal Protocol and that it, as a high-ambient- temperature country, would be particularly affected. His country would be unable to meet those

13 Egypt, Ghana, Grenada, Paraguay, Rwanda and Viet Nam. 14 Decision IX/24: Control of new substances with ozone-depleting potential; decision X/8: New substances with ozone-depleting potential; decision XI/19: Assessment of new substances; decision XIII/5: Procedures for assessing the ozone-depleting potential of new substances that may be damaging to the ozone layer. UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 challenges by itself, and he therefore wished to discuss its eligibility for technical and financial assistance starting with the phase-out of HCFCs during the meetings in 2017. 56. It was agreed by the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties that the statement of the representative of the United Arab Emirates would be reflected in the report of that meeting and that the matter would be included on the agenda for the next meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. The Working Group may wish to address the matter on the basis of any further information submitted for consideration.

11 UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/2 Annex

Consideration of hydrofluorocarbons not listed as controlled substances in Annex F to the Montreal Protocol Submission by Switzerland and Norway The Meeting of the Parties, Noting that there are other hydrofluorocarbons with minimal or no known production or consumption that are not controlled under Article 2J of the Protocol, Decides: 1. To urge parties to discourage the development and promotion of hydrofluorocarbons with significant global warming potential not listed as controlled substances in Annex F to the Protocol; 2. To encourage parties to inform the Secretariat of the existence of hydrofluorocarbons referred to in paragraph 1 of the present decision, including the likelihood of production and consumption; 3. To request the Secretariat to forward such information forthwith for assessment to the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; 4. To request the Scientific Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report to the Meeting of the Parties on such hydrofluorocarbons.