Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

22-26 November, 2004
| Prague, Czech Republic

 Earth Negotiations Bulletin - ENB
 Web English   French
 Tue 23
Thu 26 &


Digimarc Digital Watermarking | Get more information on how to digitally watermark images




Highlights from Tuesday, 23 November

Delegates met in Plenary in the morning and afternoon, taking up agenda items on methyl bromide, the Multilateral Fund and issues related to ratification, data reporting, compliance, and international and illegal trade. Working groups on methyl bromide critical use nominations (CUNs), the working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC), and financial issues also convened.
Janusz Kozakiewicz, Co-Chair of the Open-Ended Working Group
, and Executive Secretary Marco González

Consideration of Methyl Bromide Issues


Regarding the latest version of the handbook for critical uses of methyl bromide prepared by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its MBTOC, including the reporting forms and accounting framework appended to it, the EC (right), supported by Australia (left), opposed adopting the handbook at MOP-16, since it does not incorporate the results of the Ad Hoc Working Group on MBTOC's working procedures. Australia suggested deferring consideration of the handbook to MOP-17 and proposed that Parties submitting nominations use it as an informal source of guidance until it is formally adopted.

Contact Group on Critical Use Nominations (CUNs)

Pierre Pinault chaired the contact group on critical use nominations

Jonathan Banks and Nahum Marban Mendoza, Co-Chairs of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) with Amber Moreen, ENB
Consideration of issues related to the Multilateral Fund for Implementation of the Montreal Protocol

Mark Wagner, ICF Consulting (above right), presented an overview of the final report (UNEP/OzL.Pro.16/11), outlining the terms of reference, methodology, data collection process, recommendations, and key opportunities and threats identified. He explained that the report included recommendations covering organizational, technical, and financial aspects of the Fund's work, and covered issues ranging from improved communications to the use of promissory notes and an internal system for quality control.

Melony McKenzie and Donald Cooper, the Bahamas; the Bahamas said the Executive Committee should review the recommendations of the report evaluating and reviewing the Multilateral Fund but stressed that the MOP should make the final decision. While agreeing with the report's assessment that no fundamental changes to the Fund were required, Marjan van Giezen, the EU (right) highlighted recommendations relating to improving transparency, implementation, quality control, and independent auditing

On the evaluation and review of the Multilateral Fund, Mr. Inomata, Japan (left) expressed interest in the report’s comments on fixed exchange rate systems, and raised issues relating to bilateral donor agencies and illegal trade.
Paul Horwitz and Tom Land, Environmental Protection Agency, US (right); the US
asked the Implementation Committee to submit more detailed information on the amount for which Parties are out of compliance for greater transparency.


Delegates from Cambodia and Cameroon (left) and David Lesolle, Botswana; on the report evaluating and reviewing the Multilateral Fund, Botswana drew attention to the issue of projects to minimize illegal trade.


Fereidours Rostami-Nasfi, Iran (left) argued that it was not fair to qualify some Parties as non-compliant if they had not been given the opportunity to provide the requested information. Fiji (right) intervened during the debate about the report by the President of the Implementation Committee on non-compliance issues.


Delegates from the Czech Republic (above); Noting the radical political changes that have taken place in the countries of the Eastern European and Central Asian region , the Czech Republic emphasized the need to see these countries represented in the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund.

Maas Goote (Netherlands), Co-Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Working Procedures and Terms of Reference of the MBTOC (above left); an open-ended contact group, co-chaired by Maas Goote met in the afternoon to work on the draft decision submitted by the ad hoc working group on the working procedures and terms of reference of the MBTOC. Participants discussed, among other issues, a proposal by the EU to ask TEAP and its MBTOC to further advise Parties on the technical justifications for spreading a CUE over more than one year. Hassen Hannachi (Tunisia), President of the Implementation Committee, presented on the report of the Committee's 33rd meeting, and on the draft decisions submitted for the MOP's consideration. Noting about 95% of the Parties have now reported data for 2003, he said the high rate of data reporting is a substantial achievement.

Ibro Cengic, Bosnia and Herzegovina (left) introduced a draft decision that gives one seat in the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to a representative of this region
Marcia Levaggi, Chair of the Executive Committee (above right), reported that UNEP Executive Director Klaus Töpfer had indicated that the UN Secretary-General should appoint the Chief Officer on the recommendation of the Executive Director of UNEP, who may consider the Executive Committee's recommendations


India (left) stressed the importance of the study on the 2006–2008 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund in assessing the social and economic impacts of implementation of the Montreal Protocol for small and medium enterprises. Delegates from Syria (right)

Side Event: Expedited Procedure for Amending the Montreal Protocol and the EU proposal


Maas Goote, Ivon van Heugten and Alistair McGlone from the European Commission

Alistair McGlone gave a presentation on the EU proposal to introduce an expedited procedure to amend the Montreal Protocol 


Photos from around the Conference

Mugure Kibe Ursulet and Rjendra Shende, Energy and OzoneAction Branch, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, UNEP (


Montreal Protocol homepage and meeting documents for the 16th Meeting of the Parties
Annotated Provisional Agenda for MOP 16
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
UNDP Montreal Protocol Unit
World Bank Group- Montreal Protocol

UNEP OzonAction Programme
UNEP Solvents Technical Options Committee

ENB coverage of the Montreal Protocol
ENB coverage of the Extaordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, held 24-26 March, 2004

ENB Coverage of the 15th Meeting of the Parties, held 10-14 November, 2003

Any irregularities on this page? Please mail the Digital Editor
| Linkages home | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to ENB |
� 2003, IISD. All rights reserved.