The recent decision by global leaders to work toward a coordinated reduction of HFCs has been rightly hailed as historic. Of course, European policymakers and industry alike have the satisfied glow of knowing the reason the nations of the world can now envisage a road map to a global HFC phasedown is because of the template put in place for Europe by the F-Gas regulations.

The Europeans' excitement is also, no doubt, fueled to some extent by the knowledge that their own experience of moving to lower-GWP alternatives will be a useful (and probably billable) asset to developed and developing nations alike who are shortly to embark on their own technology journey.

Those policymakers around the world who will soon be required to write up their own national legislation and standards regarding HFC phasedown will no doubt be looking closely at the F-Gas framework. But current events in the U.K. are showing that the F-Gas rules aren't without their faults.

The problem causing the current angst is the ambiguity surrounding some of the legislation's wording when it comes to the world of mobile air conditioning, and more specifically what constitutes compliance when it comes to both competence and sector-specific technology.

One of the clear aims of the F-Gas rules is to reduce the emissions from refrigerants used in servicing and maintenance, which is why there are requirements on the stationary industry for regular leak checks, registration of engineers and controls over sales of refrigerant to qualified individuals.

However, it is widely acknowledged that the aim is much harder to regulate in the vehicle air conditioning industry, because a) it is far larger and more fragmented than the stationary sector; and b) most of the A/C specialists are not just A/C engineers but general vehicle servicing engineers.

Despite that, there was a mood that the sector needed to have stricter rules, to tighten up on the attitudes to emissions and align it more with the rest of the cooling industry. One of the particular problems has been the distribution of "DIY" refrigerant top-ups, where cans of refrigerant have been able to be purchased by the general public, with an attendant lack of controls regarding venting and safe recovery.

The argument goes, you can't have a regime that seeks to control use and handling of HFCs in the stationary sector if you are going to turn a blind eye to the vehicle sector letting refrigerants go to atmosphere any time car owners try to top up leaks themselves.

It was perhaps no surprise that when the latest version of the F-Gas regulation was published two years ago, there was an attempt to bring regulation to vehicle A/C servicing, with reference to the need for qualified personnel.

But at the same time, the wording was pretty ambiguous — a fact some believe was actually a deliberate move, because the European Commission simply couldn't get its head round how to address such a vast challenge, and it was under pressure to bring out the F-Gas rules as quickly as possible.

By leaving in plenty ambiguity, it effectively handed over the issue for individual countries to reach their own definitions. It was almost as if the European Commission was saying to each country: "Sort it out yourselves."

So in the U.K. this June, the Environment Agency did just that, sending out a notice to everyone involved in wholesaling, retailing and servicing vehicle A/C, setting out the new responsibilities under F-Gas.

The notice stated categorically that it was no longer legal to sell F-Gas refrigerants for the servicing of mobile air conditioning in passenger cars, unless the customer purchasing the gas "could demonstrate that the person intending to install it held a qualification in refrigerant recovery." This, the Agency said, was to comply with the F-Gas Regulation and was based on advice from the European Commission.

So far, so good. The vehicle A/C sector was pleased at the emphasis on servicing by properly qualified personnel — aligning it to the stationary industry — and the implication that the "DIY cans" would be ruled noncompliant (and presumably banned from sale from consumer outlets, too).

But that view was immediately challenged by one undisclosed stakeholder — widely assumed to be a supplier of a DIY refrigerant product — who promptly complained to the government department that wrote the national legislation, Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). The mystery stakeholder complained that restricting sales only to suitably qualified personnel was in fact restriction of trade, going beyond what was required by the letter of the law in the F-Gas regs.

Defra did what most people would do in such circumstances — it consulted its lawyers. And in October, it released a statement, pointing to what it saw as a distinction between refrigerant top-up and refrigerant recovery in the wording of the rules about restricting activities to qualified personnel.

"Defra believes that such restrictions do not apply for the servicing of MAC, only for the recovery of F-gases in such systems," the department wrote. "Therefore, the UK Government believes that it remains legal to sell F-gases for use in MAC systems to those who do not hold recovery qualifications."

This, to all intents and purposes, represented a complete U-turn on the advice only weeks earlier from its regulating agency the Environment Agency.

Just to muddy the waters further, Defra added that this didn't mean the conventional aerosol refrigerant top-ups could be used, they had to be refillable ones: "Such F-gas products must nevertheless still comply with the 2014 Regulation, which requires that they are sold in refillable containers, with suitable provision having been made for its return for retrofitting."

This, not surprisingly has really annoyed those in the sector who had lobbied for proper regulation. The European trade body for the vehicle air conditioning sector MACpartners said it was "gravely concerned" at the government's apparent U-turn and vowed to challenge what is sees as a contradiction of the F-Gas Regulation. It said it will be addressing this matter with both Defra and the European Commission on behalf of its members and all stakeholders in the industry.

So while it appears that aerosol cans of R134a are no longer unable to comply, the Defra advice apparently clears the way for no refrigerant-qualified staff to do servicing work and topping up with other containers.

MACpartners says it was "astounded" to hear that Defra was giving the green light apparently to "unlicensed individuals and the general public" and added it was equally concerned that such a U-turn appeared to come only because a single stakeholder complained.

It released a strongly worded statement: "This action by Defra not only allows the sale of so called DIY top ups of R134a to untrained service technicians and even further to the general public via auto spare parts outlets, but it allows untrained individuals to simply add refrigerant to a leaking system without seeking the services of qualified service personnel to properly recover the refrigerant from the vehicle and perform repairs."

As if this wasn't bad enough, there remains considerable uncertainty in the market as to what constitutes a compliant canister, with many in the vehicle sector believing that the current advice will open the flood gates to uninformed purchases of the noncompliant versions — which are still legal in countries outside of the EU and so could find their way into Europe via online sites.

Where does that leave the situation currently? In some confusion. It remains to be seen how the lobbying of MACpartners proceeds. Some insiders think that now the EC will require Defra to do a U-turn on its U-turn — a 360-degree turn perhaps? — because it goes against the emission-cutting spirit of F-Gas.

One thing is clear: The current confusion can only increase emissions of HFCs in the short term. Readers in North America take note that ambiguity does no favors to the planet.