In Vienna, the Parties failed in practical terms to improve on agreements on HCFC controls in Article 2 countries that were already reached in Copenhagen (1992). The lowering of the cap on HCFC use from 3.1% to 2.8% reflects what is happening in the market anyway, as was predicted at the Copenhagen meeting by many governments and Observers. Other changes are largely cosmetic [1].

There remain significant environmental benefits from making deep and early cuts in the existing interim steps and in lowering the cap of the Vienna agreement on HCFCs. Under the current arrangements nearly 60% of the allowable Article 2 HCFC consumption will occur between 1996 and 2004.

Continuing the current HCFCs phase out schedule in Article 2 countries, is environmentally and economically undesirable and clearly violates the spirit of the Montreal Protocol which "...stipulates that each Party shall endeavor to ensure that HCFCs use is limited to those applications where other environmentally suitable alternative substances or technologies are not available".

Since alternatives to almost all HCFCs applications are readily available, it must be assumed that decisions to maintain the current HCFCs phase out schedule are commercially and politically led rather than based on environmental and/or technical grounds.

For example, the Refrigeration and Foams sectors account for more than 90% of HCFC use in the world. It is in these sectors where environmentally safe and competitive alternatives, in both domestic and commercial applications, have been most rapidly developed. It should also be emphasized that safety standards have been produced and that market-wise these alternatives have been very successful.

As the March 1995 TEAP Report states:

"... in many refrigeration and air conditioning applications, HCFCs are becoming less important for new equipment than for servicing existing equipment originally designed to use CFCs and HCFCs". (Non- Article 5(1) Party Scenarios, p.28)

And in the foam sector, the World Bank's Ozone Operations Resource Group wrote in 1994: "Cyclopentane technology is commercially proven and is the most cost effective of the zero ODS technologies."

And a 1994 UNEP document "Elimination of CFCs from Domestic Refrigeration Manufacture" wrote: "In most parts of the world (other than USA whose present interest is in HCFC-141b) cyclopentane now has the major share of all new conversions to alternatives."

The immediate phase out of HCFCs in Article 2 countries and their subsequent rapid elimination globally is environmentally imperative. Furthermore, the most rapid phase-out for these chemical in Article 2 countries is essential for sending the right technological and commercial signals to Article 5 countries and to prevent these countries from being led into a cul-de-sac from which it would be costly to recover both in economical and environmental terms.

It is both environmentally and technologically convenient for Article 5(1) countries to implement HCFC-free technologies in order to become less dependent in the medium and long term. Continued use of HCFCs will be economically and environmentally expensive. It is inevitable that as the ozone layer further depletes the public will demand the complete elimination of these chemicals

It is both environmentally and technologically convenient for all countries to implement HCFC-free technologies now.

The 1995 TEAP Report noted:

"In many cases developing countries can avoid investments in HCFCs technology that was at one time considered to be the best choice but has now been rendered unnecessary by newer and more environmentally acceptable technology". (Article 5(1) Party Scenarios, p.30)

A production phase out schedule is an essential element of any attempt to curb HCFC use. As long as there are no effective controls on the production of HCFCs in Article 2 countries, or on the export of HCFCs from Article 2 countries to Article 5 countries, there is an incentive for industry to promote the use of HCFCs around the world.