HCFC Phase-out Management Plans

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) have always been considered as an interim solution to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) Phase-out, because of their lower Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP) which is between 5-10% when compared to CFCs. While the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of HCFCs is high (600-2,200 CO₂-equivalent), it is much lower than that of CFCs (6,000-10,600 CO₂-equivalent). The majority of HCFCs have a high GWP. Their phase-out through the introduction of lower GWP alternatives will therefore contribute significantly to climate change mitigation. Depending on the alternative selected, this contribution can be very significant or can be so deleterious and of such magnitude as to nullify the efforts a country is undertaking via other voluntary actions, such as efficient lighting or appliance replacement programmes to achieve energy savings. In 2007, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs (initially targeted for 2040) largely because of the substantive climate benefits this would bring about. Parties operating under the Montreal Protocol’s Article 5(1) (mostly developing countries) may receive financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol (MLF) to formulate their overarching strategy and prepare HCFC Phase-out Management Plans (HPMPs).The control steps under the adjusted Montreal Protocol for these parties are: i) “freeze” of HCFC production and consumption by 2013 (the baseline being the average of 2009 and 2010); ii) reduction of 10% by 1 January 2015; iii) 35% reduction by 2020; iv) 67.5% reduction in 2025; v) 97.5 reduction by 2030; and vi) 100% phase-out by 2040. Currently, UNDP is assisting developing countries and countries with economies in transition to comply with the HCFC consumption freeze and the 10% reduction targets. As the lead agency in 30 developing countries UNDP is supporting the preparation of their HCFC Phase-Out Management Plans (HPMPs). Combined, these countries represent 77% of the global consumption of HCFCs. UNDP also supports countries in the preparation of investment projects for the conversion of manufacturing processes to non-HCFC alternatives in the foam, refrigeration and air-conditioning, solvents and other sectors. HCFC elimination in those sectors can bring energy efficiency gains and significant climate benefits through proper selection of alternatives. In short, UNDP’s country assistance contains the following main elements:

• Institutionl Capacity Development –Analyzing existing administrative practices and institutional structures controlling ODS, and specifically HCFCs, by assessing gaps, deficiencies and needs; and recommending changes and identifying resources available/necessary to meet Montreal Protocol obligations.
• Assessment and Demonstration of HCFC Alternative Technologies - Providing technical support and information with respect to alternative technologies and substances, taking into consideration, inter alia, ozone, climate benefits and energy efficiency; facilitating engagement of industrial and commercial enterprises in discussions related to alternative technology developments/assessments; assessing new low carbon technologies for use in developing countries; and promoting South-South cooperation.
• Technical Assistance and Technology Transfer – Support to countries in undertaking (sub)sector-level HCFC production and consumption surveys, technology needs assessments and situation analyses on HCFC import, export/re-export and distribution channels; forecasting HCFC production and consumption patterns, undertaking prioritization with respect to HCFC phase-out and developing comprehensive strategies and action plans for HCFC phase-out management looking into low-carbon national and sectoral strategies.
• Maximizing Climate Benefits in the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning – Careful analysis and calculation of net impact to climate of alternative technologies and supporting countries to combine and sequence the funding to implement the transformation to technologies which will maximize climate benefits of planned HPMP.
• Policy and Regulatory Interventions – Analyzing current compliance status and preparing consumption-based future compliance projections; undertaking analysis of legal and regulatory frameworks governing ODS and specifically HCFCs, such as licensing and import/export controls; identifying gaps and deficiencies in existing regulatory frameworks and recommending changes to maintain consistency with Montreal Protocol obligations.
• Increased Access to Funding – Supporting countries in securing financial support from the MLF to meet compliance with the Montreal Protocol, and assisting in identifying and mobilizing additional financial resources to address climate co-benefits from the GEF, carbon markets, bilateral donors, and other sources.

Please share the article

183