Ozone Secretariat Sophia Mylona Monitoring and Compliance Officer

1. ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORSConsumption of Ozone-Depleting SubstancesUNECE Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia & South-Eastern EuropeGeneva, 11-13 July 2011 Ozone Secretariat Sophia Mylona Monitoring and Compliance Officer

2. Presentation outline • Background information on the Montreal Protocol • Key features, Institutional framework • Key obligations • Data reporting • Status of reporting • Reporting procedures • Issues related to the quality of reported data • Major challenges • Concluding remarks

3. 1985 VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYERMontreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (ODS) • Adopted 16 September 1987 • 196 Parties – Universal Ratification • Contains mandatory timetables for the phase out of ODS - Original Protocol: 5 CFCs & 3 halons; - Current: 96 ODS • Amended 4 times (1990, 1992, 1997, 1999) • Adjusted 6 times (1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2007) As Parties ratify the various Amendments they assume new data reporting responsibilities

4. Development of Parties’ Ratification Status

5. Institutional Framework under the Montreal ProtocolInnovative features:Assessment Panels,Non-Compliance MechanismandFinancial Mechanism

6. Party classification under the Montreal ProtocolEECCA/SEE Region • Developing countries (Article 5 Parties) - eligible for MLF funding Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan • Developed countries (non-Article 5 Parties) - CEIT, funded by Global Environment Facility (GEF) Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan

7. Regional Networks of National Ozone Units (NOUs) • Set up under the Multilateral Fund to build the National Ozone Officers’ (NOOs) skills to implement and manage national ODS phase-out activities • Networking activities - Annual and follow-up workshops - Regular communication between UNEP and NOOs - Thematic and contact group meetings - Country-to-country cooperation • Results: Improved data reporting, policy making, Refrigerant Management plans and development of peer pressure among ODS Officers to take early steps to implement the Protocol Key players:NOOs, Implementing Agencies, Regional Coordinators (based at UNEP’s Regional Offices)

8. Compliance Assistance Programme - Regional Networks

9. Key Obligations under the Montreal Protocol • Control Measures: phase out schedules Common but differentiated approach: Developing countries given 10 years’ grace period • Regulatory measures: - Establishment of Licensing systems - Trade controls • Data Reporting - Imports, Exports, Production, Destruction of ODS, Trade with non-Parties - Exempted uses (if relevant): Feedstocks, Essential uses, Critical or Quarantine and Preshipment applications of methyl bromide, Emergency uses

10. Non-Article 5 Party Control Measures 2010-2030(Consumption) * 1989 HCFC Consumption + 2.8 CFC Consumption

11. Article 5 Party Control Measures 2010-2040(Consumption) * Allowing for servicing an annual average of 2.5% during 2030-40

12. Regulatory measures: Licensing systems • Within 6 months of ratifying the 1997 Montreal Amendment Parties must establish and implement a system for licensing the import and export of all new, used, recycled and reclaimed ODS • All parties in the EECCA/SEE region have reported to the Secretariat that they have established and operate licensing systems However, more than cursory compliance is essential to ensure ODS phase-out – The efficiency of operation and enforcement of licensing systems remains a challenge

13. Data Reporting obligations (Article 7) • Each Party must report its ODS data annualy • Reported data must include (as appropriate): • Imports, Exports, Production, Destruction of ODS, Trade with non-Parties • Exempted uses (if relevant): Feedstocks, Essential uses, Critical or Quarantine and Preshipment applications of methyl bromide, Emergency uses • Data reporting forms and reporting instructions are available at the Ozone Secretariat’s website http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/ozone_data_tools.php

14. Data reporting….cont Annual Data Reporting: • Due 30 September each year, starting the year the Protocol or relevant Amendment enters into force for the Party • Parties are encouraged to report by 30 June each year (decision XV/17) All reported (aggregated) figures to date can be accessed through the Secretariat’s web site: http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/ozone_data_tools_access.php

15. Annual data reportingParties reporting data within 6 and 9 months

16. Global ODS Consumption97.4 % reduction in all ODS by all Parties by 2009

17. Consumption of ODS in the EECCA/SEE Region98.6% of the Parties’ baseline phased out by 2009

20. Reporting procedure • Parties report their ODS data to the Ozone Secretariat through their designated Authorities which act as focal points • The Secretariat reviews the submitted data to detect any apparent discrepancies and check compliance with the Protocol provisions • Cases of Potential Non-Compliance are subject to the established Non-Compliance Procedure and are eventually brought to the attention of the Implementation Committee for its consideration However, The Ozone Secretariat does not have the mandate to question/assess the quality of reported data

21. Reporting procedure…cont • Countries that receive financial assistance from the MLF/GEF to phase out their ODS must report their sectoral data to those institutions • Those reports are evaluated by the MLF/GEF Are you aware of any such activities in your country? Close interaction with your National Ozone Officers is important in this regard

22. Definition of ODS Consumption under the Protocol • Annual controlled consumption is defined as: “Consumption” = “Production” + Import–Export where: “Production” = Production – Destruction – Feedstock use With the exemption of the Russian Federation which is an ODS producer and exporter, all other countries in the region are predominantly ODS importers; Thus, data quality depends primarily on the reliability of imported data

23. Reliability of reported data - Major challenges • National ODS legislation may not be as comprehensive as it should or may not be implemented effectively • National licensing systems for ODS import/export may not be operating or enforced effectively, resulting to misreporting and possibly illegal trade • Countries with ODS destruction facilities may not be reporting the ODS quantities destroyed • Co-operation between all relevant authorities and stakeholders at the national level or regional/global level (in cases involving international trade) may be inadequate or even absent Participation of countries in the informal Prior Consent (iPIC) Procedure has prevented several cases of illegal trade in ODS

24. Informal Prior Informed Procedure (iPIC) on ODS Trade • A voluntary and informal mechanism of information exchange on intended trade between the authorities in importing and exporting countries which are responsible for issuing ODS trade licenses (NOUs) • Aims to assist member countries to implement licensing systems effectively so that they do not exceed their maximum allowable consumption levels under the Protocol • Key elements: • Exporting countries check the copy of import licenses voluntarily before issuing export licenses • Importing countries inform exporting countries of their registered importers and the ODS quantities allocated to them for a specific year

25. Informal Prior Informed Procedure (iPIC) on ODS Trade • Established in 2005/2006 in South East Asia on a pilot basis involving NOUs and their customs counterparts • In 2008 6 countries of the ECA Ozone Network (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and one country from Latin America (Colombia) joined the iPIC procedure • In the first 2 months of 2009, 6 more countries from Latin America (Bahamas, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia and Trinidad & Tobago) joined in • The European Union fully participates in the iPIC since 2007 • Network countries have proposed that major exporting countries such as China, India and the Republic of Korea work closely with importing countries in the region

26. The ECA Ozone Network • Includes 12 Article 5 countries from the Balkan, Caucasus and Central Asia region • Trade partners including the EU, China and Russia are involved in a project “ECA enforcement network of Customs & Enforcement Officers” and cooperate closely on the prevention of illegal ODS trade • During the period 2007-2009, more than 1000 metric tonnes of allegedly recycled CFCs were illegally traded and investigations have been initiated. Such illegal trade could have been prevented through simple phone calls or email exchanges between importing and exporting countries applying the iPIC procedure

27. Decision XVII/16(Dakar, 2005)Preventing illegal trade in controlled ozone-depleting substances “…. 4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to revise the reporting format resulting from decision VII/9 to cover exports (including re-exports) of all controlled ozone-depleting substances, including mixtures containing them, and to urge the Parties to implement the revised reporting format expeditiously. The Ozone Secretariat is also requested to report back aggregated information related to the controlled substance in question received from the exporting/re-exporting Party to the importing Party concerned; ……”

28. Import/Export data discrepancies in ECA/CEIT countries- 2009(Aggregated amounts in MT)

29. Import – Export data discrepancies in 2009…cont(Aggregated amounts in MT)

30. Import – Export data discrepancies…cont(Aggregated amounts of new and recovered substances in MT)

31. Import – Export data discrepancies…cont(per substance in MT)

32. Several reasons for detected discrepancies • Imports greater that Exports - Some exporting countries may not be reporting their export destinations - Exporting countries may be underestimating their exports - Importing countries may be overestimating their imports • Exports higher than Imports - Exporting countries may be overestimating their exports - Importing countries may be underestimating their imports – this case may place the importing country into non-compliance under the Protocol Whatever the reason, understanding the cause(s) of such discrepancies and taking measures to prevent them from reoccurring results in improving implementation of national licensing systems and combating illegal trade

33. Challenges related to HCFCs • HCFCs to be phased-out by 2030 in the developed/CEIT countries and by 2040 in the developing countries • The MLF is currently assisting several developing countries to prepare their HCFC Management Plans (HPMPs) including checking the reliability of national ODS inventories – This has resulted in several developing countries requesting revision of their ODS consumption figures for one or several years, including those for 2009 (baseline year) • From the countries in the EECCA/SEE region, Tajikistan has requested revision of its HCFC baseline year (1989) so far • Revisions of baseline data will be considered by the Protocol’s Implementation Committee at its 46th meeting in Montreal, 7-8 August 2011

34. Concluding remarks • For the countries in the EECCA/SEE Region consumption of ODS depends greatly on imported (and to a lesser extent) exported figures • Good quality of import/export data requires efficiently enforced licensing systems and excellent coordination of relevant authorities at the national and international level, including participation in the iPIC Procedure • For producing countries, reliable consumption data depend additionally on reporting of ODS destroyed and/or used as feedstocks (if relevant)

35. Concluding remarks…cont. • Parties are advised to review and strengthen their national data tracking procedures, to ensure proper operation of their licensing systems and to cross-check their data with the sources of their imports • National representatives reporting to UNECE on ODS consumption as environmental indicators should co-operate closely with their countries’ National Ozone Officers to get a better understanding of the nature of ODS data reported under the Montreal Protocol (including any activities undertaken by NOOs to improve data quality and any phase-out projects those countries may have with the MLF/GEF) and resolve any inconsistencies involved

36. Thank you!sophia.mylona@unep.orghttp://ozone.unep.org http://unep.ch/ozone