The agenda item 12(c) on destruction of HCFC 23 under SBSTA was officially closed. But HCFC 22 is still used in many developing countries. How could the agenda be re-introduced under CMP for the purpose of environmental integrity?
There are very limited opportunities to revive discussions on HFCs in the current CMP discussions. The matter cannot be re-introduced as a new agenda item at this CMP meeting, although interventions about the impacts of HFCs can be made in other related negotiations on the CDM and mitigation. Any proposal for a new agenda item on environmental integrity associated with HFCs would need to be made in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, which require a proposal for an item to be made to the secretariat prior to the opening of the CMP.
Agenda item 12(c) of the SBSTA Agenda relates to implications of the establishment of new hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 (HCFC-22) facilities seeking to obtain certified emission reductions for the destruction of hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23). The Provisional Agenda for SBSTA provides the following guidance on the item:
86. Background: SBSTA 34 took note of the technical paper prepared by the secretariat, its previous conclusions under this agenda sub-item and the views expressed by Parties during the session. SBSTA 37 agreed to continue its consideration of the matter at SBSTA 39.
87. Action: The SBSTA will be invited to explore whether there are new ideas to move this agenda sub-item forward and, if not, to evaluate the merit of continuing its consideration.
On 13 November 2013, SBSTA closed the agenda item and agreed to conclude its consideration of these issues and recommended draft conclusions on the matter for consideration and adoption by the CMP. The draft conclusions can be found in FCCC/SBSTA/2013/L.24/Add.1. They state, relevantly, that the CMP recognised the work of SBSTA and the information collected by the Parties in document FCCC/TP/2011/12 and notes that SBSTA has deliberated on the issue and had completed its consideration.
We note that interventions have been made in Workstream 2 of the ADP by Australia and others on the need to address HCFs as part of mitigation effort. However, there remains a view amongst a number of Parties that consideration of these gases should occur in the Montreal Protocol forum, rather than the UNFCCC.
There are very limited opportunities to revive discussions on HFCs in the current CMP discussions. The matter cannot be re-introduced as a new agenda item at this CMP meeting. Any proposal for a new agenda item on environmental integrity associated with HFCs would need to be made in accordance with the Rules of Procedure (FCCC/CP/1996/2), which require a proposal for an item to be made to the secretariat prior to the opening of the CMP.
There is no reason why interventions cannot be made in other related agenda items about the need to address the environmental integrity of CDM projects that relate to HCFC-22 destruction, for example, the agenda items associated with guidance to the CDM Executive Board and more generally in the ADP Workstream 2 discussions where it has already been noted. However, any intervention is unlikely to see a substantive decision being taken if Parties are unwilling to address the matter in the agenda item which has specifically been established for this matter.