DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: THE MAIN BATTLE GROUND

Clearly, the advent of Greenfreeze caught the chemical industry and the major North American refrigerator manufacturers off guard.

A Du Pont newsletter, written in 1990 but circulated as late as 1992, ridiculed those, like Greenpeace, who were calling for an immediate ban on ozone depleting substances such as CFCs and HCFCs, by smugly remarking: "We certainly have the option of no longer refrigerating our food supply, 75% of which is refrigerated as it is harvested, processed, stored, distributed or served. Are we prepared to be totally dependent on food that is consumed as soon as it is harvested? Or food that is dry, canned, smoked, salted or pickled to prevent spoilage?" The newsletter then asserts that for "...40% of the CFC market, largely refrigeration, no completely environmentally neutral alternative has yet been developed, nor is any likely in the near future."

Greenfreeze technology, all of a sudden, became a contender for a share of the world market. HCFC/HFC technology suddenly had to face competition from a technology which under most criteria is clearly superior. This was not part of the plans of the chemical industry, nor their corporate clients. The greatest battleground for marketshare is presently in developing countries with their rapidly expanding economies, and an annual growth of 15% in the refrigerator sector.

Hydrocarbon technology offers many benefits to these countries. These benefits include:

• independence and sovereignty in supply of non-patented foaming agents and refrigerants
• lower costs for foaming agents and refrigerants resulting in lower operating costs
• avoidance of the costs of a two step conversion which include retrofitting equipment, changing production lines, and training of personnel
• easier maintenance and servicing than HFC-134a technology
• environmentally sustainable

As Dr. Sukumar Devotta (Engineering Services, National Chemical Laboratory, India) stated:

"There are some developing countries, e.g. India and China...with a substantial domestic market...which are self reliant in the manufacture of both refrigerants and related hardware . The developing countries cannot afford double changes. They would prefer to assess the merits and demerits of the possible alternatives before making a final choice so as to continue to maintain their current technological independence...."

Proponets of HCFC/HFC technologies argue that hydrocarbons are too expensive because of the extra costs of safety design and equipment. While it is true that there are additional capital investments involved, the Multilateral Fund provides a 35% incremental cost allowance to cover those safety related expenses. On the long run hydrocarbons are much more cost effective than HCFC and HFCs. Information provided in UNEP document ExCom 20/65 on Safety Related Costs in Projects Using Hydrocarbon Technology, clearly indicates in paragraph 24, that operating costs for141b/134a technology is nearly five times more than for hydrocarbon technologies.

HCFCs in Developing Countries

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)

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."

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 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)

HFC-134a in Developing Countries

The impact of HFC-134a technology upon the service sector of developing countries should be of special concern to governments and industries, as well as to the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol and its Implementing Agencies.

It is apparent that HFC-134a technology is being foisted upon domestic refrigeration industries in Article 5 countries without adequate information. Recent information from developing countries point to severe technological problems associated with HFC-134a in the area of servicing. These problems are associated with the synthetic ester oil lubricant that 134a requires. Ester oil is extremely sensitive to contamination from water vapour and other impurities. It makes home servicing very difficult at best circumstances, and even more so under most conditions prevalent in developing countries.

In fact, HFC-134a may well prove to be a technological nightmare for the service sector of Article 5 countries. This may compel refrigerator manufacturers that have not yet converted to remain with CFCs, and convincing those that have converted to switch back to CFCs.

Greenpeace, together with other NGOs, is calling upon the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to initiate an independent in-depth investigation of HFC-134a technology, which would examine the suitability of this technology for Article-5-countries, and include an evaluation of representative cases of HFC-134a projects executed so far by the Multilateral Fund and its Implementing Agencies. Such investigation should also focus on the needs and realities of the formal and informal service sectors in developing countries.