About UNEP
UNEP DTIE OzonAction BranchOzonAction Programme
  UNEP > DTIE > OzonAction Branch Search

HCFC Help CentreHCFC-related Executive Committee Decisions

The following decisions related to HCFCs have been taken by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol.

This information was taken from the Multilateral Fund Secretariat's Policies, Procedures, Guidelines and Criteria document. Please refer to the full Executive Committee reports available on the Multilateral Fund website. Items with and asterisk (*) have been added by UNEP OzonAction pending the next update of the Policies, Procedures, Guidelines and Criteria document.

The list is organised by meeting number and then by Decision.

See also the related decisions taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.


Twelfth Meeting

The Twelfth Meeting of the Executive Committee adopted the following recommendations on the use of transitional substances as substitutes for ozone depleting substances:

(a) in view of the ongoing review requested of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, the paper on The Use of Transitional Substances as Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/12/34) may not be considered as a policy guideline but as a possible input to the work of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

(b) meanwhile, consideration of the use of HCFC in the Multilateral Fund projects should be sector-specific and approved for use only in areas where more environment-friendly and viable alternative technologies are not available.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/12/37, para. 168).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/12/34).

Fifteenth Meeting

The Fifteenth Meeting of the Executive Committee stated that, whenever possible, HCFCs should not be used. It further requested that the applicability of HCFCs in commercial refrigeration projects should be examined by an expert group, possibly the OORG, which should prepare a report for submission to the Executive Committee.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/15/45, para. 90).

The Executive Committee requested Implementing Agencies to take the following issue into consideration when preparing projects for domestic refrigerator insulation foam conversion:

(a) as HCFCs were not controlled substances for Article 5 countries, incremental costs for conversion of HCFC-141b plants were not eligible for funding;

(b) Implementing Agencies should note a presumption against HCFCs when preparing projects; and

(c) where HCFC projects were proposed, the choice of this technology should be fully justified and include an estimate of the potential future costs of second-stage conversion.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/15/45, para. 129).
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/17/60, Decision 17/17 para. 26).

Nineteenth Meeting

Decision 19/2
The Executive Committee, noting the recommendation of the Sub-Committee (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/19/5, para. 12), decided:

(a) to take note of decision VII/3 of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to control HCFCs and to note further that projects involving conversion to HCFCs should be considered in the light of that decision, as well as other relevant factors;

(b) that in the future, in cases where conversion to HCFCs was recommended, the Implementing Agencies should be requested to provide a full explanation of the reasons why such conversion was recommended, together with supporting documentation that the criteria laid down by the Executive Committee for transitional substances had been met, and should make it clear that the enterprises concerned had agreed to bear the cost of subsequent conversion to non-HCFC substances; and

(c) to request the Secretariat to prepare for examination by the Executive Committee at its Twentieth Meeting a paper on:

(i) the historical background to HCFC conversion projects;
(ii) what information on alternatives to HCFCs had been provided by the Implementing Agencies to the applicant countries, and how that information had been received and acted upon; and
(iii) the justifications given for the choice of one technology over another.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/19/64, Decision 19/2, para. 17).

Twentieth Meeting

Decision 20/48
The Twentieth Meeting of the Executive Committee, decided:

(b) to request the Implementing Agencies to ensure that adequate information on all alternative technologies was provided to enterprises converting from CFCs;

(c) to reaffirm paragraph (b) of its decision 19/2 which stated that, in cases where conversion to HCFCs was recommended, the Implementing Agencies should be requested to provide a full explanation of the reasons why such conversion was recommended, together with supporting documentation that the criteria laid down by the Executive Committee for transitional substances had been met, and should make it clear that the enterprises concerned had agreed to bear the cost of subsequent conversion to non-HCFC substances.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/20/72, Decision 20/48, para. 72 (b, c).

Twenty-third Meeting

Decision 23/20
The Twenty-third Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:

(a) to request the Fund Secretariat to produce a paper containing figures on an analysis of what projects were being submitted for funding using HCFC technologies, to see whether there existed any trend towards or away from HCFC use in specific sectors, particularly the foam sector;

(b) to request the Secretariat to incorporate the following elements in the project evaluation sheets and, in the case of (i) below, in the list of projects and activities presented to the Committee for approval:

(i) information on the conversion technology to be used;

(ii) a comprehensive outline of the reasons for selection of the HCFC technology, if used; and, where possible,

(iii) an indication of how long an enterprise intended to use a transitional HCFC technology.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/23/68, Decision 23/20, para. 42).

Twenty-sixth Meeting

Decision 26/26
The Twenty-sixth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:

(a) that the full information provided in the project document should be included in the project evaluation sheet;

(b) that where, upon review by the Fund Secretariat, a project proposal requesting HCFC technology was considered to provide inadequate information justifying the choice of that technology, the project should
be submitted for individual consideration by the Sub-Committee on Project Review.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/26/70, Decision 26/26, para. 50).

Twenty-seventh Meeting

Decision 27/13
The Executive Committee at its Twenty-seventh Meeting expressed its appreciation for the increased information/justification provided for the selection of HCFCs and noted that that was the level of information
originally expected, and that at least that level was expected in the future; stressed to the Implementing Agencies that it considered this to be more than a paper exercise, and urged the Agencies to take seriously the obligations related to providing information on alternatives available; and decided, in recognition of Article 2F of the Montreal Protocol, to request that Implementing Agencies provide, for all future projects or groups of projects for HCFCs from any country, a letter from the Government concerned. In the letter, the country

(a) verify that it had reviewed the specific situations involved with the project(s) as well as its HCFC commitments under Article 2F;

(b) state if it had nonetheless determined that, at the present time, the projects needed to use HCFCs for an interim period;

(c) state that it understood that no funding would be available for the future conversion from HCFCs for these companies.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/27/48, Decision 27/13, para. 35).

Twenty-eighth Meeting

Decision 28/28
The Twenty-eighth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided that information on a possible study comparing costs of alternative technologies and the impact on their choice of support from the Multilateral Fund should be the subject of a separate agenda item for its Twenty-ninth Meeting, for consideration by the Executive Committee itself.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/28/57, Decision 28/28, para. 54).

Thirtieth Meeting

Decision 30/1
The Thirtieth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided to establish an open-ended contact group, with Sweden as convener, in order to consider the question of policy on HCFC use as an interim technology and that the outcome of the group's work would be discussed under "Other matters".
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/30/41, Decision 30/1, para. 5).

Thirty-fourth Meeting

Decision 34/51
The Thirty-fourth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided to request the Secretariat, in relation to all future projects which involved conversion to HCFC-141b, to include in the meeting documentation the letter from the Government concerned, explaining the reasons for the choice of the technology, as per Decisions 23/20 and 27/13.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/34/58, Decision 34/51, para. 71).

Thirty-sixth Meeting

Decision 36/56
The Thirty-sixth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:

(a) to take note with appreciation of the paper submitted by France;

(b) to request the Multilateral Fund Secretariat to update document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/36/34 with new costs for various options and to investigate the availability of non-ODS pre-blended polyol, and to submit the updated document and its findings for the consideration of the 39th Meeting;

(c) to request Implementing Agencies to amplify the relevant enterprise information pursuant to Decision 20/48 with data concerning import restrictions into non-Article 5 countries and the cost situation for alternatives, and to inform the enterprises that they should acknowledge having received that information. The corresponding documentation should accompany the project proposal;

(d) to request the Secretariat to send to the National Ozone Unit of the recipient country, a letter recalling that HCFC-141b projects would be excluded from funding in the future (no second conversion), with copies to the Ministries of the Environment and Foreign Affairs;

(e) that the annual Executive Committee report to the Meeting of the Parties should state by country the amount of HCFC-141b consumption phased in through projects using HCFC as replacements, a consumption which would - in application of Decision 27/13 - be excluded from funding at future stages.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/36/36, Decision 36/56, para. 122).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/36/35).

Thirty-eighth Meeting

Decision 38/38
The Thirty-eighth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided for projects to phase-out CFCs by conversion to HCFC technologies, Governments had officially endorsed the choice of technology and it had been clearly explained to them that no further resources could be requested from the Multilateral Fund for funding any future replacement for the transitional HCFC technology that had been selected.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/38/70/Rev.1, Decision 38/38, para. 74 (b)).

Forty-second Meeting

Decision 42/7
The Forty-second Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:

(a) to request the Government of Germany to take into account the views expressed on the eligibility of funding HCFC phase-out management studies by the Multilateral Fund at the 42nd Meeting of the Executive Committee, in the informal group meeting and, in addition, further submissions of additional ideas and opinions sent by e-mail to GTZ-Proklima, as the German bilateral Implementing Agency, provided that they were received 10 weeks prior to the 43rd Meeting of the Executive Committee; and

(b) also to request the Government of Germany to circulate to the Executive Committee, through the United Kingdom delegation, a policy paper on the issues of the responsibility of the Multilateral Fund and potential eligibility requirements for such a study and to reformulate the project proposal for submission and consideration at the 43rd Meeting of the Executive Committee on that basis.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/42/54, Decision 42/7, para. 47).

Forty-third Meeting

Decision 43/19
The Forty-third Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:

(a) to note that:

(i) the May 2003 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s HCFC Task Force Report predicted a dramatic increase in HCFC consumption in China in the foreseeable future;

(ii) the intent of the proposed project was also to allow utilization of its results for all Article 5 countries; and

(iii) established Executive Committee policies did not support conversion of capacity installed after July 1995 nor a second conversion and the study was therefore not aiming at preparing or initiating any conversion projects;

(b) to approve the project “Development of a suitable strategy for the long-term management of HCFCs, in particular HCFC-22, in China”, addressed in documents UNEP/Ozl.Pro/ExCom/43/21 and UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/43/51, at the level of funding of US $300,300 plus support costs for the Government of Germany of US $39,039 on an exceptional basis on the condition that, as one of the outcomes, a study would look into the effects of management of HCFCs in China and in other Article 5 countries; and

(c) to further note that:

(i) a schedule for the study, indicating a project duration of 21 months, had been submitted to the Fund Secretariat. Both the Government of Germany and the Government of China would strive to adhere to
that schedule;

(ii) the Government of China intended to use relevant outcomes of the study as a basis for subsequent national action by the Government and expected that such action would take place within three years
after finalization of the study; and

(iii) interested Executive Committee members and Implementing Agencies would be invited to participate in an informal advisory group, which might discuss survey methodologies, the evaluation of information gathered, and policies.

(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/43/61, Decision 43/19, para. 85).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/43/21)

Fifty-third Meeting

Decision 53/37
The Fifty-third Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:

(a) that ratification of or accession to the Copenhagen Amendment was the prerequisite for an Article 5 Party to access Multilateral Fund funding for phasing out the consumption of HCFCs;

(b) that ratification of or accession to the Beijing Amendment was the prerequisite for an Article 5 Party to access Multilateral Fund funding for phasing out the production of HCFCs;

(c) that, in the case of a non-signatory country, the Executive Committee might consider providing funding for conducting an HCFC survey and the preparation of an accelerated HCFC phase-out management plan, with the commitment of the government to ratify or accede to the necessary Amendment and on the understanding that no further funding would be available until the Ozone Secretariat had confirmed that the government had ratified or acceded to that amendment, through the deposit of its instrument in the Office of the United Nations Headquarters in New York;

(d) that the existing policies and guidelines of the Multilateral Fund for funding the phase-out of ODS other than HCFCs would be applicable to the funding of HCFC phase-out unless otherwise decided by the
Executive Committee in light of, in particular, decision XIX/6 of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties;

(e) that institutions and capacities in Article 5 countries developed through Multilateral Fund assistance for the phase-out of ODS other than HCFCs should be used to economize the phase-out of HCFCs, as appropriate;

(f) that stable and sufficient assistance from the Multilateral Fund would be provided to guarantee the sustainability of such institutions and capacities when deemed necessary for the phase-out of HCFCs;

(g) that the production sector sub-group would be reconvened at the 55th Meeting to consider issues pertaining to the phase-out of HCFC production, taking into account decision XIX/6 of the Nineteenth
Meeting of the Parties and the following issues, as well as further elaboration and analysis of those issues to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with technical experts:

(i) the continued applicability of the current approach to funding HCFC production phase-out being based on the assumption of plant closures;

(ii) the timing of funding HCFC production phase-out in view of the long duration between the HCFC freeze in 2013 and the final phase-out in 2030, taking into consideration that production and
consumption phase-out could take place simultaneously;

(iii) the eligibility of the CFC/HCFC-22 swing plants in view of the commitment in the CFC production phase-out agreement not to seek funding again from the Multilateral Fund for closing down HCFC facilities that use the existing CFC infrastructure;

(iv) the cut-off date for funding eligibility of HCFC production phase-out;

(v) other measures that could facilitate management of HCFC production phase-out; and

(vi) other issues related to the HCFC production sector, taking in account subparagraph (g)(ii) above.

(h) that the Secretariat would work with the implementing agencies to examine the existing guidelines for country programmes and sector plans (decision taken at the 3rd Meeting of the Executive Committee and decision 38/65), and propose draft guidelines to the 54th Meeting for the preparation of HCFC phase-out management plans incorporating HCFC surveys, taking into consideration comments and views relating to such guidelines expressed by Executive Committee members at the 53rd Meeting and the submissions to the 54th Meeting referred to in paragraph (l) below, and that the Executive Committee would do its utmost to approve the guidelines at its 54th Meeting;

(i) that the Secretariat, in consultation with technical experts with knowledge of experiences in Article 5 countries with different levels of development and non-Article 5 countries, would prepare by 25 March
2008 a preliminary discussion document providing analysis on all relevant cost considerations surrounding the financing of HCFC phase-out, taking into account the views expressed by Executive
Committee Members in the submissions referred to in paragraph (l) below, and including:

(i) information on the cost benchmarks/ranges and applicability of HCFC substitute technologies; and

(ii) consideration of substitute technologies, financial incentives and opportunities for co-financing which could be relevant for ensuring that the HCFC phase-out resulted in benefits in accordance with
paragraph 11(b) of decision XIX/6 of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties;

(j) that the current classifications of low-volume-consuming (LVC) countries and small and medium-sizedbeen developed and the potential impact of those thresholds on LVC countries and SMEs had become better known. It would then be possible to review those classifications including a classification for very low-volume consuming countries, and current policies and funding arrangements targeting those countries and enterprises;

(k) to note that the following cut-off dates for funding HCFC phase-out had been proposed:

(i) 2000 (Cap of HCFC production/consumption in one major country);

(ii) 2003 (Clean Development Mechanism);

(iii) 2005 (proposal for accelerated phase-out of HCFCs);

(iv) 2007 (Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties);

(v) 2010 (end of the baseline for HCFCs);

(vi) Availability of substitutes;

(l) as a matter of priority, and taking into account paragraphs 5 and 8 of decision XIX/6 of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties, to invite Executive Committee Members to submit their views on the following
issues to the Secretariat, by 15 January 2008, with the understanding that the Secretariat would make the submissions available to the 54th Meeting:

(i) elements the Secretariat should consider in the draft guidelines for the preparation of national HCFC phase-out management plans;

(ii) cost considerations to be taken into account by the Secretariat in preparing the discussion document referred to in paragraph (i) above;

(iii) cut-off date for funding eligibility; and

(iv) second-stage conversions;

(m) to approve 2008 expenditure of up to US $150,000 to cover the costs of consultations with technical experts and other stakeholders required for the preparation of the documents referred to in the present decision.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/53/67, Decision 53/37, para. 201).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/53/60).

Fifty-fourth Meeting

Decision 54/3
The Fifty-fourth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided to adopt the following guidelines:

(a) countries should adopt a staged approach to the implementation of an HCFC phase-out management plan (HPMP), within the framework of their over arching strategy;

(b) as soon as possible and depending on the availability of resources, countries should employ the guidelines herein to develop, in detail, stage one of the HPMPs, which would address how countries would meet the freeze in 2013 and the 10 per cent reduction in 2015, with an estimate of related cost considerations and applying cost guidelines as they were developed;

(c) the elaboration of stage one of the HPMP and subsequent stages should be developed as follows:

(i) for countries with consumption in the servicing sector only: a. to be consistent with existing guidelines for the preparation of RMPs/RMP updates pursuant to decisions 31/48 and 35/57; and, if applicable, with the preparation of TPMPs pursuant to decision 45/54; b. to contain commitments to achieve the 2013 and 2015 HCFC control measures and include a performance-based system for HPMPs based on the completion of activities in the HPMP to enable the annual release of funding for the HPMP;

(ii) for countries with manufacturing sectors using HCFCs, HPMPs should contain a national performance based phase-out plan (NPP) with one or several substance or sector-based phase-out plans (SPP) consistent with decision 38/65 addressing consumption reduction levels sufficient to achieve the 2013 and 2015 HCFC control measures and provide starting points for aggregate reductions, together with annual reduction targets;

(d) for countries that chose to implement investment projects in advance of completion of the HPMP:

(i) the approval of each project should result in a phase-out of HCFCs to count against the consumption identified in the HPMP and no such projects could be approved after 2010 unless they were part of the

(ii) if the individual project approach was used, the submission of the first project should provide an indication of how the demonstration projects related to the HPMP and an indication of when the HPMP
would be submitted;

(e) consideration should be given to providing funding for assistance to include HCFC control measures in legislation, regulations and licensing systems as part of the funding of HPMP preparation as necessary and confirmation of the implementation of the same should be required as a prerequisite for funding implementation of the HPMP;

(f) in cases where there were multiple implementing agencies in one country, a lead agency should be designated to coordinate the overall development of stage one of the HPMP;

(g) HPMPs should contain cost information at the time of their submission based on and addressing:

(i) the most current HCFC cost guidelines at the time of submission;

(ii) alternative cost scenarios based on different potential cut-off dates for new capacity if a specific cut-off date had not yet been decided, for funding eligibility of manufacturing facilities as specified in decision 53/37(k), as well as the current policy for a 25 July 1995 cut-off date;

(iii) alternative cost scenarios for the operational and capital costs for second conversions;

(iv) the incremental costs of regulating import and supply to the market of HCFC dependent equipment once proven alternatives were commercially available in the country and describing the benefits to the servicing sector of associated reduced demand;

(v) cost and benefit information based on the full range of alternatives considered, and associated ODP and other impacts on the environment including on the climate, taking into account global-warming potential, energy use and other relevant factors;

(h) countries and agencies were encouraged to explore potential financial incentives and opportunities for additional resources to maximize the environmental benefits from HPMPs pursuant to paragraph 11(b) of decision XIX/6 of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties;

(i) HPMPs should address:

(i) the use of institutional arrangements mentioned in decision 53/37(e) and (f);

(ii) the roles and responsibilities of associations of refrigeration technicians and other industry associations
and how they could contribute to HCFC phase-out; and

(j) HPMPs should, as a minimum, fulfil the data and information requirements, as applicable, listed in the indicative outline for the development of HPMPs, as set out in Annex XIX to the present report.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/54/59, Decision 54/3,.9, para.170).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/54/53).

Decision 54/40
After hearing a statement from the facilitator of the contact group, the Executive Committee decided to consider at its 55th Meeting a revised version of document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/54/54 which would take into account any comments that Members had submitted to the Fund Secretariat by the end of April 2008.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/54/59, Decision 54/40, para.177).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/54/54, Corr.1 and Add.1).

Fifty-fifth Meeting

Decision 55/43
The Fifty-fifth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:

(a) to take note of the discussion paper providing an analysis of relevant cost considerations surrounding the financing of HCFC phase-out contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47;

(b) to invite bilateral and implementing agencies to prepare and submit project proposals to the Secretariat for those HCFC uses addressed in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) below so that the Executive Committee could choose those projects that best demonstrated alternative technologies and facilitated the collection of accurate data on incremental capital cost and incremental operating costs or savings, as well as other data relevant to the application of the technologies, on the understanding that the quantity of HCFC to be phased out under those projects needed to be deducted from the starting point for sustained aggregate reductions in eligible consumption as set by the HCFC phase-out management plan (HPMP);

(c) to note the limited introduction of several of the HCFC alternative technologies available to date in Article 5 countries, the need to validate them and optimize their use in the light of the local conditions prevailing in Article 5 countries, and the wide variation in costs of replacement equipment and raw materials and, accordingly:

(i) to request the Secretariat to gather technical information related to HCFC phase out in the aerosols, fire extinguishers and solvents sectors on an ongoing basis, to review any project in those sectors when submitted and to refer it, as appropriate, for individual consideration by the Executive Committee;

(ii) to consider deferring to its first meeting in 2010 any decision it might wish to take on policies for the calculation of incremental operating costs or savings from HCFC conversion projects, as well as the establishment of cost-effectiveness thresholds, in order to benefit from the experience gained through review of HCFC phase-out projects as stand-alone projects and/or as components of HPMPs prior to that Meeting;

(d) to agree that the technical information contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47, was sufficient to enable preparation, review and submission on a case-by-case basis of a number of stand-alone projects for HCFC phase out in the foam, refrigeration and air conditioning sectors;

(e) to invite bilateral and implementing agencies, as a matter of urgency, to prepare and submit a limited number of time-specific project proposals involving interested systems houses and/or chemical suppliers for the development, optimization and validation of chemical systems for use with non-HCFC blowing agents on the
following basis:

(i) as part of the projects, following the development and validation process, the collaborating systems houses would provide technology transfer and training to a selected number of downstream foam enterprises to complete the phase-out of HCFCs in those enterprises;

(ii) agencies would collect and report accurate project cost data as well as other data relevant to the application of the technologies;

(iii) in order to be of benefit for the preparation and implementation of the HPMPs, as well as any standalone projects, these specific projects would be completed within a period not exceeding 18 months and a progress report on each of the two implementation phases as outlined in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above,
would be made available to the Executive Committee;

(iv) bilateral and implementing agencies and relevant collaborating systems houses were encouraged to address the technological issues surrounding preparation and distribution of premixed polyols containing hydrocarbon blowing agents;

(f) to invite bilateral and implementing agencies to submit a limited number of demonstration projects for the conversion of HCFCs in the refrigeration and air conditioning sub-sectors to low-global warming potential (GWP) technologies to identify all the steps required and to assess their associated costs;

(g) to continue its deliberations on policy relating to second-stage conversions and determination of the cut-off date for installation of HCFC-based manufacturing equipment, after which incremental costs for the conversion of such equipment would not be eligible for funding, with a view to concluding its considerations prior to submission of stand-alone projects;

(h) to further analyse if an approach of the type outlined in document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47 provided a satisfactory and transparent basis for the prioritization of HCFC phase-out technologies to minimize other impacts on the environment, including on the climate as originally envisaged in decision XIX/6 of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties, and to request the Secretariat to continue with its evaluation in order to report in a more detailed fashion at a subsequent Executive Committee Meeting;

(i) to request the Secretariat to approach other institutions with the objective of identifying individual, regional or multilateral funding mechanisms that might be suitable and compatible as sources for timely co-financing to top up Multilateral Fund ozone funding in order to achieve additional climate benefits and to provide a further report to a future Meeting; and

(j) to consider, at a future Meeting, issues relating to whether or not to retire, prematurely, functioning equipment once the 2013 and 2015 compliance targets had been addressed.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/53, Decision 55/43, para. 206).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47).

Fifty-sixth Meeting

Decision 56/6
The Fifty-sixth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided to request:

(vii) UNEP to develop a training module on policy and technical issues related to the reduction of HCFCs, with technical inputs from the other implementing agencies, for briefings of national ozone units during network meetings.
*(Decision 56/6, para 48 b)

Decision 56/11
The Fifty-sixth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:

(a) To take note of the report on planned conversion to HCFC-based equipment in ongoing projects contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/56/11/Add.2;

(b) To note the information cited in the report to the effect that UNDP would call for tenders under the project "Terminal umbrella project for phase-out of the use of CFC-11 in the manufacture of polyurethane foam" in Chile for equipment that allowed the use of non-ODS technology once it became available in the country;

(c) To request agencies to discuss with relevant countries the possibility of avoiding the use of HCFCs as replacement technology in conversion activities under phase-out plans where possible; and

(d) To request agencies to report in their annual implementation reports for multi-year agreements those cases in which HCFC technology was used to replace CFC technology, including the name and location of the relevant beneficiaries, capacity converted or
previous CFC consumption, the reason for the technology selection, and whether the equipment selected could also be used with non-ODS technology to lessen the need for further assistance from the Multilateral Fund.
*(Decision 56/11, para 67)

Decision 56/16
The Executive Committee decided:

(a) To note document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/56/13 regarding a cost structure for determining funding levels for preparation of HCFC investment and associated activities (decision 55/13(d));

(b) To define the elements of a cost structure for funding the preparation of an overall HCFC phase-out management plan (HPMP) in line with decision 54/39 and comprising several components as follows:

(i) Assistance for policy and legislation, e.g. to develop new or extend existing legislation regarding HCFC, products containing HCFCs, quotas, and licences;
(ii) Survey of HCFC use and analysis of data;
(iii) Development and finalization of the HPMP including its stage one to address the 2013 and 2015 control measures, the latter being akin to a terminal phase-out
management plan (TPMP) or a refrigeration service sector plan;
(iv) Development of investment activities for the HCFC-consuming manufacturing sectors for stage one of an HPMP, if such activities were necessary;

(c) To provide funding for elements (b)(i) to (iii) above as specified in the table below, based on the countries' HCFC consumption for 2007, while applying decision 55/13(a), (b) and (c):

Group according to consumption pattern
Funding for above components
(b)(i) to (iii)
Countries with zero consumption of HCFC US $30,000
Countries with consumption only of HCFC-22, or
consumption below 6 ODP tonnes/year
US $85,000
Countries with medium consumption, between 6 ODP tonnes/year and 100 ODP tonnes/year
US $150,000
Countries with consumption higher than 100 ODP tonnes/year
US $195,000

(d) To limit the maximum funding provided for the element (b)(iv) of the HPMP for any country with a manufacturing sector using HCFCs as per the following table based on the countries' HCFC consumption for 2007, on the understanding that those limits represented maximum amounts and requests for project preparation would have to justify the level of funding up to that amount, and on the understanding that preparation costs for demonstration projects according to decision 55/43 paragraphs (b) to (f) were not taken
into account when calculating that level of funding;

Consumption limit (ODP tonnes)
Investment preparation limit
Up to 100 $100,000
101 -300
501 - 1,000 $300,000
1,001 and above

(e) To define five manufacturing sub-sectors as follows: air-to-air air conditioning systems; refrigeration (including all refrigeration, heat pumps and air conditioning sub-sectors except air-to-air air conditioning systems); polyurethane foam; extruded polyurethane
(XPS) foam; and solvent uses in manufacturing;

(f) To provide funding for the element (b)(iv) of the HPMP for countries with manufacturing capacity up to a maximum specified below, to be determined by the total number of enterprises to be converted under HPMP stage one in the relevant sub-sector as defined under paragraph (e) above, excluding those enterprises with demonstration projects that might be chosen by the Executive Committee according to decision 55/43, paragraphs (b) to (f):

(i) One enterprise to be converted in a manufacturing sector: US $30,000;
(ii) Two enterprises to be converted in a manufacturing sector: US $60,000;
(iii) Three to 14 enterprises to be converted in a manufacturing sector: US $80,000;
(iv) Fifteen or more enterprises to be converted in a manufacturing sector: US $150,000;

(g) That in the case where Parties wish to submit requests for preparation of sub-sector plans in the approved sectors, the total funding available for all sub-sector plans in each sector
should not exceed US $150,000;

(h) Not to apply the provisions in subparagraphs (c), (e) and (f) above to China;

(i) To request that for demonstration projects, according to decision 55/43 paragraphs (b) to (f), the request for preparation funds should include specification of country, sector, brief description of the project, approximate ODP tonnes phase-out to be achieved, the enterprise(s) to be addressed, if relevant, and the date when they began operation,
reference to the relevant sub-paragraph of decision 55/43, and a description of compelling reasons as to why the Executive Committee should choose this project as described in decision 55/43 (b). Funding could be provided up to the following levels:

(i) Stand-alone demonstration projects (55/43) in a manufacturing sector, per project: US $30,000;

(ii) Umbrella demonstration projects (55/43) with three to 14 beneficiaries in one manufacturing sector, per umbrella project: US $80,000;

(iii) Projects addressing 15 or more beneficiaries could not receive preparation funding for demonstration projects related to decision 55/43; and

(j) To request the Secretariat to apply this cost structure when assessing the eligibility for funding of the different elements of the HPMP preparation, and to propose adjustments to the structure, in particular with regard to investment and associated activities, to the Executive Committee when necessary.
*(Decision 56/16, para 92)

Decision 56/64
The Executive Committee decided:

(a) To defer the issue of cut-off dates for the production sector to a future meeting, taking into account any further discussions on a cut-off date for HCFC consumption;

(b) To further consider the issue of swing plants at the 57th Meeting of the Executive Committee;

(c) To request the Fund Secretariat to provide a summary of information publicly available on relevant elements of the operation of the clean development mechanism and the amounts of HCFC-22 production available for credits as a first step;

(d) To constitute and convene the production sector sub-group at the 57th Meeting to finalize the work of the contact group on elements of a future decision with respect to the HCFC production sector, including:

(i) Adopting the practices and procedures laid out in paragraphs (a)(i)-(a)(vii) to (d) of decision 19/36 of the Executive Committee for the HCFC production sector or excluding paragraph (a)(vii) which states that "the environmental clean-up of the ODS-producing facility should not constitute an incremental cost; however, it should be done in an environmentally responsible manner";

(ii) Continuing to calculate production costs on the basis of closure taking into account foreign ownership and export to non-Article 5 components of facilities being closed or calculating production costs on the basis of closure, conversion, and/or redirection to feedstock taking into account foreign ownership and export to non-Article 5 components of facilities being closed;

(iii) Encouraging a synchronized production/consumption phase-out as part of the first HPMP;

(iv) Considering, as appropriate, providing incentives for early phase-out of HCFC production and/or providing disincentives for HCFC production that would be
phased out later;

(v) Requiring a robust monitoring system, similar to that used for the verification of the CTC phase-out, to monitor facilities that received funding but continued to
produce HCFCs for feedstock uses;

(vi) Continuing the discussion on other issues including but not limited to: a. Technical audits for production sector in China under its HPMP; and b. An analysis of costs for production closure versus conversion to HFC-32
versus feedstock.

* (Decision 56/64, para 231)

Decision 56/65
The Executive Committee decided to continue its deliberations on the issue of second conversions and cut-off dates at its 57th Meeting, in light of the mandate provided by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties, and the information provided in document NEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/56/58 and annexes thereto.
* (Decision 56/65, para 234)


HCFC-related Decisions of the Meeting of the Parties
List of HCFCs controlled under the Montreal Protocol
Where HCFCs are used
Frequently Asked Questions
Trade names of chemical products containing HCFCs
Ozone Secretariat External link
Multilateral Fund Secretariat External link
UNEP Compliance Assistance Programme
UNDP Montreal Protocol Unit External link
UNIDO Montreal Protocol Unit External link
World Bank Montreal Protocol Operations External link
© UNEP DTIE 2007 | updated 26-may-08