Action on Ozone2000 Edition

UNEPOzone Secretariat

United Nations Environment Programme

Ozone SecretariatUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeP. O. Box 30552, Nairobi, KenyaE-mail: Ozoneinfo@unep.orghttp://www.unep.org/ozonehttp://www.unep.ch/ozone

ISBN: 92-807-1884-3

Published 2000

Produced byThe Secretariat forThe Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer &The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Printed and bound in Kenya by UNON. Printed on recycled paper.

Cover design by UNON Printshop (June 2000)

Co-ordination: K. Madhava Sarma, Executive Secretary, OzoneSecretariat, UNEPNelson Sabogal, Senior Scientific Affairs Officer,Ozone Secretariat, UNEPGilbert M. Bankobeza, Senior Legal Officer, OzoneSecretariat, UNEP

Research and Editing: Duncan Brack, Consultant(dbrack@dircon.co.uk)Michael Graber, Ozone Secretariat, UNEPRuth Batten, Ozone Secretariat, UNEPGerald Mutisya, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP

Layout and Formatting: Bo Sorensen, UNON PrintshopMartha Adila, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP

UNEP

Foreword i

1. The Shield in the Sky 1Ozone depletion 1

2. The ‘Holes’ in the Layer 4Miracle substances 4The ozone ‘holes’ 5

3. Saving the Ozone Layer 8Beginnings 8The Vienna Convention for the Protection of theOzone Layer 9The Montreal Protocol on Substances thatDeplete the Ozone Layer 9

4. The Montreal Protocol 12Control measures on ozone-depleting substances 12Institutions and procedures 13Developing countries and the Multilateral Fund 14

5. The Impact of the Ozone Regime 16The record of the ozone regime 16Alternatives to ozone-depleting substances 17New challenges 18

6. The Future of the Ozone Regime 19

Table of Contents

Imagine a world without thetreaties designed to protect theEarth’s stratospheric ozone layer.

Production and consumption ofindustrial chemicals such aschlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) andhalons would be climbing steadily,bringing products such asrefrigerators, air conditioning,aerosol sprays, insulating andfurniture foams into the homes andvehicles of hundreds of millions offamilies around the world.

Part of the attraction of thesesubstances is their stability; they donot break down easily under heat,or pressure, or chemical reactions.But this very stability means thatwhen they are released into theatmosphere, they survive to diffuseup into the stratosphere. In thisworld without the treaties,concentrations of these chemicalsreach five times today’s value andnine times the value now projectedfor 2050.

High in the atmosphere, thesechemicals are finally broken apartby solar radiation and in turn reactwith and destroy the planet’sprotective layer of ozone. By 2000,ozone levels have fallen by 50% ofpre-industrial levels north of thetropics, and by 70% southwards.

Without the stratospheric ozone layerto stop it, an ever-rising intensity ofultraviolet radiation penetrates tothe planet’s surface by 2050, doublecurrent levels in the north andquadruple in the south. Skin cancers,eye damage and immune systemsuppression are rife in those whoexpose their bodies to the sun.Walking in the open air cannot berisked without sunscreen andsunglasses; sunbathing is banned.

This is the world as it might havebeen, without the ozone treaties –the 1985 Vienna Convention for theProtection of the Ozone Layer and

the 1987 Montreal Protocol onSubstances that Deplete the OzoneLayer. The international regimecreated by these two agreements –revised, and made more effective, onno less than five occasions over thelast decade – is saving the worldfrom that alternative.

This is the fourth edition of Actionon Ozone produced by UNEP. Andalthough the depletion of theEarth’s ozone layer has now reachedrecord levels – thanks to the lastseventy-five years of production anduse of ozone-damaging chemicals –this is the first edition in which wecan say it is now at its peak. Thescientific evidence clearly shows thebeginnings of a fall in theconcentrations of the dangerouschemicals in the lower atmosphere –which is now being translated into asimilar fall in the stratosphere,where the ozone is destroyed. Theozone layer is predicted to start torecover in the next one or twodecades, and should be restored tofull health by the middle of the newcentury.

It is one of UNEP’s proudestachievements to have led theinternational effort to protect theEarth’s ozone layer. The MontrealProtocol, which was negotiatedunder our aegis, has, rightly, beenregarded as a model for otherinternational environmentalagreements. It has proved a flexibleand adaptable regime. It has helpedto bring together scientists,industrialists and governments,with their different but essentialviewpoints. It has dealt effectivelywith the different needs ofindustrialised and developingcountries in meeting a commonthreat. There is much that can belearned from the story of the ozoneregime of value to other areas ofinternational environmental action,including biodiversity,desertification and climate change.

We must remember, however, thatalthough the fight is being won,there is still much to be done in thefield of ozone protection. Althoughthere is still some scope fortightening the control schedules forthe remaining ozone-depletingsubstances, in order to hasten therecovery of the ozone layer, theozone regime, as it continues toevolve, is facing new and differentchallenges. Implementation of thecontrol measures in developingcountries, who met their firsttargets under the Protocol just lastyear; cases of non-compliance;evasion of the controls throughillegal trade: all pose new threats tothe health of the ozone layer and tothe planet beneath it.

We can be proud of ourachievements. We can learn lessons,and continue to adapt and innovate.And we can continue to meet thesechallenges, so that we all may strivefor a better life for the peoples of theworld.

Klaus TöpferExecutive Director, UNEP

Foreword

UN

EP

1

Fig. 1.1 The thin layer of ozone in the stratophere is at its thickest between about 20-40 km up.It also accumulates near the ground in the troposphere, where it is a troublesome pollutant.

1928: The first CFCs (CFC-11 and -12) are developed in the US, initially to be used as coolants for refrigeration. Beginning in the 1960s, consumptiongrows rapidly in developed countries, encouraged by the versatile and favourable properties of CFCs: stable, non-toxic, non-corrosive and non-flammable.

1970: A scientific paper points out the possibility that nitrogen-oxides from high-flying supersonic aircraft and from fertilizer applications might depletethe ozone layer.

All life on Earth depends onthe existence of a thinshield of a poisonous gas

high in the atmosphere: the ozonelayer.

Ozone is a molecule made up ofthree oxygen atoms. It is anextremely rare component of theEarth’s atmosphere; in every tenmillion molecules of air, only aboutthree are ozone. Most of the ozone(90%) is found in the upperatmosphere (the stratosphere),between 10 and 50 kilometers (6–30miles) above the Earth’s surface.This ‘ozone layer’ absorbs all but asmall fraction of the harmfulultraviolet radiation (UV-B)emanating from the sun. Ittherefore shields plant and animallife from UV-B, which in high dosescan be particularly damaging.

Ozone depletion

Any damage to the ozone layertherefore allows more UV-Bradiation to reach the surface of theEarth. Throughout the 1970s and1980s, scientists began first tosuspect, and then to detect, a steadythinning of the layer. This wasaccompanied by increases in theamount of UV-B reaching thesurface. In northern hemispheremid-latitudes (25–60°, i.e. north ofthe tropics but south of the polarregions), UV-B levels are now about7% higher than twenty years ago inthe winter and spring, and about 4%higher in the summer and autumn.In southern hemisphere mid-latitudes, UV-B levels are about 6%higher all the year round. UV-Bradiation has increased dramaticallynearer the poles, particularly in thespring – 22% higher in the Arcticand 130% higher in the Antarctic

relative to values in the 1970s. Thenext chapter explains why thisdamage to the ozone layer isoccurring.

Moderate exposure to UV-B poses nodangers; indeed, in humans it is anessential part of the process thatforms vitamin D in the skin. Buthigher levels of exposure havepotentially harmful effects on humanhealth, animals, plants, micro-organisms, materials and air quality.

In humans, long-term exposure toUV-B is associated with the risk ofeye damage, including severereactions such as ‘snowblindness’,cancer and cataracts; UV-Bradiation can cause effects on theimmune system, but may be bothadverse and beneficial. Increases inUV-B are likely to accelerate therate of photoaging, as well asincrease the incidence (andassociated mortality) of melanomaand non-melanoma skin cancer,basal cell and squamous cellcarcinoma with risk increasing withfairness of the skin. The risk of themore serious melanoma may alsoincrease with UV-B exposure,particularly during childhood;melanoma is now one of the mostcommon cancers among white-skinned people.

1. The Shield in the Sky

2

Fig. 1.2 Daily erythemal (skin-reddening) UV radiation with clouds. Significant progresshas been made in recent years in utilizing satellite-based measurements of cloud cover aswell as atmospheric ozone, to derive estimates of surface UV radiation levels.

1974: Two scientific papers suggest that CFCs emitted to the atmosphere will diffuse to the upper atmosphere and be broken down to release chlorineatoms, which will catalytically destroy ozone molecules. Nitrogen oxides emitted by high-flying supersonic aircraft are also suggested as apotential cause of ozone depletion.

1975: UNEP’s Governing Council launches a programme of research on risks to the ozone layer; in the United States, a federal task force concludes thatatmospheric release of CFCs is a ‘legitimate cause for concern’ and that uses of CFC-11 and -12 might have to be restricted. The NationalAcademy of Sciences (NAS) launches an assessment of human impact on the stratosphere.

Fig. 1.3 Euglena gracilis is a greenflagellate organism which occurs infreshwater habitats and is common inlakes, ponds and rivers; Above: theseorganisms have a spindle form and swimin their elongated form. Below: After UVirradiation the cells twist and turn andthen become rounded and cannot swim.

Dr.

Don

at H

äder

, mem

ber

of th

e E

nvir

omen

tal E

ffec

ts A

sses

smen

t Pan

elR

epor

t of t

he U

NE

P E

nvir

omen

tal E

ffec

ts A

sses

smen

t Pan

el (

1998

)an

d D

r. Sa

sha

Mad

roni

ch

Animals are subject to similareffects of increased UV-B levels.Squamous cell carcinoma associatedwith ambient solar exposure hasbeen reported in cattle, horses, cats,sheep, goats and dogs. In addition,marine life is particularlyvulnerable to UV-B, a matter ofsome concern as more than 30% ofthe world’s animal protein forhuman consumption comes from thesea. Recent studies continue todemonstrate that solar UV-B andUV-A have adverse effects on thegrowth, photosynthesis, protein andpigment content and reproduction ofphytoplankton, thus affecting thefood chain. Plant growth may alsobe directly reduced by UV-Bradiation (though responses vary agood deal depending on species),harming crop yields and quality,and various effects in forests.Effects of increased UV-B onemissions of carbon dioxide andcarbon monoxide and on mineralnutrient cycling in the terrestrialbiosphere have been confirmed.

Synthetic materials such as plasticsand rubber, and naturally occurringmaterials such as wood, paper orcotton, are affected by UV-B; thedamage caused ranges fromdiscoloration to loss of mechanicalstrength. Increases in UV-B maylimit the lifetimes of these materialsand require more expensiveproduction processes.

Finally, reductions in stratosphericozone and the accompanyingincreases in UV-B radiation interactwith other sources of pollution andenvironmental change. Increasedlevels of UV-B change the chemicalactivity of the troposphere, thelower region of the atmosphere. In

3

1977: 32 countries agree to a UNEP-brokered World Plan of Action on the Ozone Layer designed to stimulate research; UNEP establishes the CoordinatingCommittee on the Ozone Layer. The US Government requires warning labels on CFC-containing aerosols and announces its intention to phase outmost CFC use as aerosol propellants. U.S.NAS estimates that continued release of CFCs to the atmosphere will deplete the ozone layer by 14%.

1978: Developed countries attend an international meeting on CFC regulation and recommend a significant reduction in CFC use in aerosols as aprecautionary measure.

Fig. 1.4 UV change versus ozone change. Dependence of erythemal ultraviolet (UV)radiation at the Earth’s surface on atmospheric ozone, measured on cloud-free days atvarious locations, at fixed solar zenith angles. Solid curve shows model prediction with apower rule using RAF=1.10.

Rep

ort o

f the

UN

EP

Env

irom

enta

l Effe

cts

Ass

essm

ent P

anel

(19

98)

areas already suffering frompollution such as vehicle exhausts,concentrations of ozone (which atthis level is a pollutant, causingirritation to eyes and lungs) tend toincrease.

There are also complex interactionsbetween ozone destruction andclimate change. UV-B induceddestruction of stratospheric ozone inrecent years has led to a cooling ofthe lower stratosphere, masking toa certain extent the effects of thegrowing emissions of greenhousegases. On the other hand, increasesin tropospheric ozone contribute toglobal warming. In addition, thebuild-up of greenhouse gases in theatmosphere tends to reduce thefrequency of sudden stratosphericwarming in the northernhemisphere, adding to the severityof Arctic winters, which increaseozone loss (see next chapter).

4

2. The ‘Holes’ in the Layer

1979: A number of developed countries start to impose legal controls on CFC-11 and -12 production or use; in the United States, the NAS estimateseventual ozone depletion of 16.5%, or up to 30% if CFC production and release continues to grow, and calls on the US Government to lead a worldeffort to control CFCs.

Fig. 2.1 Schematic sequence of the destruction of ozone by active chlorine (Cl)released from a CFC-12 molecule.

Miracle substances

Concern began to be expressed in theearly 1970s that the Earth’s ozonelayer was vulnerable to damage bythe release of chemicals known ashalocarbons, compounds containingchlorine, fluorine, bromine, carbonand hydrogen. The most commonozone-depleting substances (ODS)were thought to be the family ofchlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, firstproduced in Belgium in 1892, andfound, by General Motors chemists inthe US in 1928, to be an effectiverefrigerating fluid. Stable and non-toxic, cheap to produce, easy to storeand highly versatile, CFCs provedthemselves an immensely valuablerange of industrial chemicals. Theycame to be used as coolants forrefrigeration and air conditioning, forblowing foams, as solvents, sterilantsand aerosol propellants. Major newuses were found for CFCs eachdecade, and world production,concentrated largely in the USA andwestern Europe, doubled roughlyevery five years until 1970.

As scientific knowledge developed,other chemicals – halons, carbontetrachloride, methyl chloroform andmethyl bromide – also came to beidentified as ozone-depleters. Some ofthe substitutes for CFCs that wereeventually developed – such ashydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs –CFCs with hydrogen atoms) alsodamage the ozone layer, but at muchlower rates.

It is the high degree of stability ofCFCs which causes their ozone-depleting properties. When releasedinto the lower atmosphere, throughthe use of an aerosol spray, forexample, or a cleaning solvent, or

5

1980: Seven developed countries and the European Community call for an international convention to protect the ozone layer. The EC freezes production capacity andbegins to limit use in aerosols. The US Environmental Protection Agency proposes the first legalcontrols on non-aerosol uses of CFCs. CFC manufacturers form theAlliance for Responsible CFC Policy, which argues that further regulation of CFCs would be premature in the absence of hard evidence of ozone depletion.

Dr.

Pau

l New

man

, NA

SA/G

SFC

/cod

e 91

6

Fig. 2.2 Monthly Antarctic (South Pole) ozone levels in October 1970, 1971, 1972,1979 and 1996-1999. The Ozone measurements were taken by NOAA’s and NASA’sBackscatter Ultraviolet (BUV) and Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS),Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).

Fig. 2.3 The Antarctic ozone hole inOctober 1999.

Fig. 2.4 The monthly average total ozonein March 1999 for the Arctic (North Pole).

Dr.

Paul

New

man

, NAS

A/G

SFC

/cod

e 91

6The ozone ‘holes’

These ozone-destroying reactionsare particularly intense within thestratospheric clouds that form aboveAntarctica in the extremely coldnight of the southern hemispherewinter. Reactions which occur onthe surfaces of ice particles withinthe clouds release chlorine andbromine in active forms thataccumulate through the winter.When the sun rises in the spring theclouds break up to release activechlorine and bromine which rapidlydestroy ozone. The result is the‘ozone hole’, an area of sharp declinein ozone concentrations over most ofAntarctica for about two or threemonths during the southernhemisphere spring. Ozone depletionis accelerated by atmosphericcirculation, which moves CFCs inthe stratosphere away from thetropics towards both poles.

Currently the ozone layer above thewhole of Antarctica thins between40% and 55 % of its pre-1980 levelwith up to 70% deficiency in shorttime periods, and at some altitudes,ozone destruction is almost total. InSeptember 1998, the Antarcticozone hole reached a record size of25 million km2, or two and halftimes the size of Europe. Althoughthe hole shrank to 13 million km2 inNovember, this still marked the firsttime that the hole had measuredmore than 10 million km2 for 100days. The average ozoneconcentration for the whole of thearea south of 65°S was the lowestever recorded in November 1998.The Antarctic ozone hole of 1999was the second largest andstrongest ozone-hole phenomenaever.

through leakage of a refrigerant,CFCs persist long enough to diffuseup into the stratosphere, where theyare broken apart by solar radiationto release chlorine atoms, whichreact strongly with ozone molecules.The chlorine oxide formed thenundergoes further reactions whichregenerate the original chlorine,allowing the process to be repeatedmany times; each chlorine atom candestroy an estimated 100,000 ozonemolecules before it is removed fromthe stratosphere. Although UVradiation continually recreatesozone from oxygen, the presence ofchlorine speeds up ozonedestruction but not its creation,reducing the overall concentrationof ozone. Similar reactions takeplace between bromine (found in thefamily of halons, used mainly as fireextinguishants and in methylbromide) and ozone.

6

Fig. 2.5 Global Ozone Trend. Deviations in total ozone, area weighted over 60oS-60oN.

1981: UNEP’s Ninth Governing Council proposes to begin work on the elaboration of a legal framework convention for ozone layer protection and establishesan ad hoc working group of legal and technical exerts for this purpose.

1982: The UNEP working group begins to elaborate a framework convention for the protection of the ozone layer, based on a draft proposal from Finland,Norway and Sweden. The US National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) estimates that eventual ozone depletion due to CFC use willbe lower than previously thought, between 5 and 9%.

Rep

ort o

f the

UN

EP

Sci

entif

ic A

sses

smen

t Pan

el (

1998

) an

d D

r . La

ne B

isho

p

Stratospheric air above the Arctic isgenerally warmer and less confinedthan over the Antarctic, and fewerclouds form there. Arctic ozonedepletion is therefore less severe,though in recent years it has provedworse than anticipated, largelybecause of unusually cold winters,with ozone losses of up to 50% atsome altitudes. The minimum Arctictemperatures are near the thresholdfor major chlorine activation, andtherefore rates of ozone destructioncan be highly variable year on year.During the 1999/2000 Arctic ozonedeficiency the ozone deviationsreached -20 to -30% poleward from65°N. Ozone depletion at mid-latitudes (25° – 60°), between thepoles and the tropics, is much lessdramatic but is still observable.Between 1979 and 1991, ozoneconcentrations fell by about 4% perdecade at mid-latitudes in both thenorthern and southern hemispheres,the losses being largest during thewinter and spring. Particles formedfrom gases ejected into theatmosphere from the volcaniceruption at Mount Pinatubo in 1991accelerated ozone destruction for twoor three years, but the rate sloweddown again thereafter, and totallosses from 1979–97 reached about5% per decade.

However, local losses can be moresignificant at certain times,particularly as the areas of ozonedepletion around the poles rotate tocover different inhabited areas fromyear to year. In the spring of 1995,for example, after an unusually coldArctic winter, stratospheric ozoneconcentrations over Europe were10–12% lower than in the mid-1970s, and over North America 5–10% lower, although at times asmuch as 20% lower in some places.The winter of 1995–96 was evencolder, and ozone concentrations

over Britain fell by almost 50% inthe first week in March, the lowestever recorded over the UK. And inthe spring of 2000 the ozonedeviations were strongest (-20 to -30%), over Europe and theCanadian and Russian Arctic.

UV-B intensities have increasedaccordingly; 1992–93 saw the firstreported examples of persistentincreases over densely populatedregions in the northern hemisphere.In 1992 southern South Americaexperienced a doubling of UV-B

radiation following a 50% fall inozone. The highest UV occuredwhenever the ozone-hole region(220DU contour) elongated into anelliptical shape that rotated overSouth America and the cloud coverwas minimal. See figure 3.2.

Increases in UV radiation in theNorthern Hemisphere at highlatitudes have been attributed tothe low ozone amounts in the winterand spring of 1995, 1996, 1997 and2000.

7

UV-b interception by litter

& microorganism

s

CO2

Reduced Growth

Reduceddecomposition

Increaseddecomposition& run off

CO

C

C

N

N

CO2

CO2

CO, OCSDMS

UV-b interceptionmainly by CDOM

DOC

DOC

DOC

Increaseddecomposition

Microbialactivity

Labile C,N

Reducedbiomass

UV-

b in

terc

eptio

n by

phy

topl

anto

n

UV-b interception by living leaves

Fig. 2.6 Conceptual model illustratingthe potential effects of enhanced UVradiation on biogeochemical cyclesin freshwater, marine and terrestrialecosystems. The effects involvingliving organisms, e.g. reduced plantgrowth, are species and/or exposuredependent.(CDOM — colored dissolved organicmatter; DMS — dimethyl sulfide;DOC — dissolved organic matter)

1983: UNEP’s Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer again reduces estimated eventual ozone depletion from current emission rates of CFC-11 and-12 to between 3 and 5%. The EC decides against further restrictions on CFCs in the light of these estimates.

Fig. 2.7 Monthlyaverages of total ozone

for the NorthernHemisphere measured

by satellites duringMarch for the 1970-

2000 periodDr.

Pau

l New

man

, NA

SA/G

odda

rd S

pace

Flig

ht C

ente

r (G

SFC

)/C

ode

916

Rep

ort o

f UN

EP

Env

irom

enta

l Effe

cts

Ass

essm

ent P

anel

(19

98)

and

Dr.

R.G

. Zep

p,T.

V. C

alla

ghan

, D.J

. Eri

ckso

n.

8

Fig. 3.1 Measurements of ozone and reactive chlorine from a flight into the Antarctic Ozone hole

1985: The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is adopted by 28 countries. The Convention requires no restrictions on ozone-depletingsubstances, but allows for the future elaboration of specific controls; the resolution adopted along with the Convention lays the foundation forfurther work on a protocol on CFC control. Two months later Joe Farman, of the British Antarctic Survey, publishes a paper showing sharp seasonaldepletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica - the ‘Ozone hole’.

Chlorine réactif(échelle de droite)

Ozone(échelle de gauche)

Air polaireantarctique

Latitude (degré sud)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 720

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n d

’ozo

ne

(Par

ties

par

mill

iard

)

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n d

e ch

lori

ne

réac

tif

(Par

ties

par

Mill

iard

)

3. Saving the Ozone Layer

Beginnings

Since its foundation, the UnitedNations Environment Programme(UNEP) has been concerned withthe protection of the ozone layer.The UN Conference on the HumanEnvironment in Stockholm in 1972,which gave birth to UNEP,addressed the topic of ozonedepletion, though damage fromsupersonic aircraft exhausts wasthen thought to be the main threat.

The first major statement ofscientific concern over ozonedepletion from CFCs came in 1974,prompted by James Lovelock’sdiscovery of the presence of CFCs inthe atmosphere all around theworld. Sherwood Rowland andMario Molina’s research (for which

they were later to be awarded theNobel Prize in chemistry) paved theway to the now thoroughunderstanding of the processes bywhich CFCs diffuse up into thestratosphere, are broken apart anddestroy ozone molecules.

Although the hypothesis wasinitially disputed, the extent andgrowth of CFC use worldwide wasenough to trigger calls for urgentaction. In March 1977, experts from32 countries met in Washington DCto adopt the ‘World Plan of Action onthe Ozone Layer’. The Plan includedresearch into the processes thatcontrol ozone concentrations in thestratosphere; the monitoring ofozone and solar radiation; the effectof ozone depletion on human health,ecosystems and the climate; and the

development of ways to assess thecosts and benefits of controlmeasures. UNEP was thecoordinating agency, assisted by theCoordinating Committee on theOzone Layer, made up of expertsfrom intergovernmental agencies,governments and industry.

In the US, the Washington meetingreinforced existing concerns overthe impact of emissions fromsupersonic aircraft. An effectivepublic campaign led to regulationsprohibiting the use of CFCs asaerosol propellants in non-essentialapplications by 1978; Canada,Sweden and Norway soon followed.US production of CFC-11 and -12fell from 46% of the world total in1974 to 28% by 1985 as a result.

Rep

ort o

f the

UN

EP

Sci

entif

ic A

sses

smen

t Pan

el (

1994

)

9

1986: International negotiations continue on a protocol to the Vienna Convention to control CFCs. CFC-producing companies support a ‘reasonable’ limit onfuture growth in CFC production, and estimate that at least five years would be needed to develop substitutes for CFC-11 and -12.

Fig. 3.2. The Antarctic ozone hole of 17 October 1994, NASA’s Total Ozone MappingSpectrometer (TOMS), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Code 916.

Alternative, non-ozone-depleting,propellants were rapidly introducedand often proved more economicthan the original CFCs. After 1982,however, CFC production in the USstarted to accelerate once more, asuse increased sharply in vehicle air-conditioning and foam-blowing.

In 1980 the European Communityagreed to reduce its CFC use inaerosols by at least 30% from 1976levels by the end of 1981 and freezeits production capacity of CFC-11and CFC -12. Since EC productioncapacity was at the timesubstantially above consumptionlevels, a capacity freeze hardlycontributed much to the control ofCFC emissions. The combined effectof the various measures taken,however, was enough to reducepublic pressure for further controls.UNEP was left with theresponsibility of keeping the issue ofozone depletion on the internationalagenda.

The Vienna Conventionfor the Protection of theOzone Layer

In 1981, UNEP’s Governing Councilestablished an Ad Hoc WorkingGroup of Legal and TechnicalExperts for the Elaboration of aGlobal Framework for theProtection of the Ozone Layer. TheGroup’s aim was to secure a generalinternational treaty to tackle ozonedepletion. The first step of aframework agreement was expectedto be relatively easy to achieve, butdifferences between the proponentsof control measures on the use ofCFCs in various sectors (such as theUS) and supporters of caps on

existing production capacity (suchas the EC) led to four years of hardwork and negotiation.

The Vienna Convention for theProtection of the Ozone Layer wasagreed by 28 countries in March1985. It contained pledges tocooperate in research andmonitoring, to share information onCFC production and emissions, andto pass control protocols if and whenwarranted. Although it contained nocommitments to take any action toreduce CFC production orconsumption, the ViennaConvention was nevertheless animportant milestone. Nationsagreed in principle to tackle a global environmental problem before itseffects were clear, or its existencescientifically proven – probably thefirst example of the acceptance ofthe ‘precautionary principle’ in amajor international negotiation.

The Montreal Protocol onSubstances that Depletethe Ozone Layer

The Vienna conference in 1985 alsoadopted a resolution empoweringUNEP to convene negotiations for aprotocol to the Convention, toinclude control measures for ozone-depleting substances and to besigned if possible in 1987. Progressin this second set of negotiationswas given a boost by thepublication, just two months afterthe Vienna conference, of thefindings of members of the BritishAntarctic Survey led by Dr JoeFarman. This was the famous ‘ozonehole’ paper, which revealed for thefirst time the existence of thedramatic declines in ozoneconcentrations over the Antarctic inthe spring. (In fact US satelliteobservations had already detected

10

1987: After several rounds of negotiations, 46 countries adopt the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Protocolrequires an eventual 50% cut in consumption of five CFCs by the end of the century, and a freeze in the consumption of three halons, with a ten-yeargrace period for developing countries to enable them to meet their basic domestic needs; the controls are to be reassessed at least every fouryears. During the year, a number of European countries legislate to restrict the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants.

this in the late 1970s, but theunexpected findings werediscarded as suspected instrumenterror.) Although the cause was stillthen unknown, suspicion fell onCFCs.

By comparison with the protractednegotiations over the ViennaConvention, negotiations on theprotocol proceeded remarkablyquickly and achieved far morethan was initially thoughtpossible. On 16 September 1987,46 countries signed the MontrealProtocol on Substances thatDeplete the Ozone Layer. (In 1995,the UN General Assembly declared16 September as the InternationalDay for the Preservation of theOzone Layer, and the signing ofthe Montreal Protocol has beencommemorated in this way in eachsubsequent year.)

The Protocol required parties tomake 50% cuts from 1986 levels inboth the production and theconsumption of the five main CFCsby 1999, with interim reductions.Production and consumption of thethree main halons was frozen at1986 levels from 1993.

Although these reductions could beattacked as either too little (if theozone depletion hypothesis wasbelieved) or too much (if it wasnot), the agreement marked animportant political andpsychological breakthrough. Andonce again science validated thenegotiators’ actions. March 1988saw the release of the report of theOzone Trends Panel, whichreviewed evidence particularlyfrom US Antarctic expeditions in1986 and 1987, and provided, forthe first time, convincing evidenceof the linkage between ozonedepletion and CFCs. Opposition tothe principle of controls on ozone-depleting substances then largelycollapsed, and industry started toconcentrate resources onFig. 3.3. Reports of the meetings of the Parties to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol.

11

1988: The scientific Ozone Trends Panel, sponsored by international agencies and US research bodies, concludes that CFCs are responsible for theAntarctic ozone hole. UNEP-administered international assessment panels are created under the Montreal Protocol to review the latest informationon scientific, environmental, technical and economic aspects of ozone depletion. DuPont becomes the first CFC-producing company to announcethat it will phase out CFC production; Northern Telecom, Seiko and Epson become the first multinational companies to announce phase-out goalsfor CFC consumption. Sweden decides to phase out CFCs by the end of 1994.

Fig. 3.4 Countries that have ratified the Montreal Protocol in green.

the development of non-ozonedepleting alternatives to CFCs.

An important feature of theMontreal Protocol was the flexibilitydesigned into it to allow for itsfurther development in the light ofevolving scientific knowledge andtechnological developments. Evenbefore it entered into force on 1January 1989, plans were beingmade to strengthen its provisions,advancing the phase-out schedulesfor the CFCs and halons it specified,and adding further ozone-depletingchemicals.

The Protocol has now been subjectto five sets of adjustments to thecontrol measures (agreed at the1990, 1992, 1995, 1997 and 1999Meetings of the Parties),accelerating the phase-outschedules for ozone-depleting

substances. It has also been subjectto four amendments:

• The London Amendment (1990)added methyl chloroform,carbon tetrachloride and afurther range of CFCs to thephase-out schedules andestablished a mechanism forfinancial and technicalassistance to developingcountry parties.

• The Copenhagen Amendment(1992) addedhydrochlorofluorocarbons(HCFCs),hydrobromofluorocarbons(HBFCs), and methyl bromideto the phase-out schedules andformally created theMultilateral Fund as the routefor financial and technology

transfers to developingcountries.

• The Montreal Amendment(1997) created a system oflicenses for imports and exportsof ODS, mainly in order totackle the growing illegal tradein the substances.

• The Beijing Amendment (1999)added bromochloromethane tothe phase-out schedules andextended the controls onHCFCs to production inaddition to the revised controlson consumption.

The main features of the regimeestablished by the MontrealProtocol are examined in the nextchapter, and their impact inChapter Five.

12

1989: The Montreal Protocol enters into force. At their first meeting, parties agree to a non-binding statement calling for CFCs to be phased out as soonas feasible. Thirteen developed countries announce their intention to phase out the eight controlled substances by 1997. First synthesis of UNEP’sScientific, Environmental Effects, Technology and Economic Assessments.

4. The Montreal Protocol

Fig. 4.1 Organizational chart of the Montreal Protocol Implementation.

Control measures onozone-depletingsubstances

At the heart of the MontrealProtocol lies the control measures itimposes on the production andconsumption of ozone-depletingsubstances (ODS). Article 2 of theagreement defines phase-outschedules for the various categoriesof ODS. These have beenprogressively tightened with timethrough the agreements reached inLondon (1990), Copenhagen (1992),Vienna (1995), Montreal (1997) andBeijing (1999). In accordance withthese schedules, the bulk of ODS –including all the substancesspecified in the original 1987Protocol – were phased outcompletely in industrialisedcountries by the end of 1995. Theremaining categories are scheduledfor total phase-out by 2002(bromochloromethane), 2005(methyl bromide) and 2030(HCFCs). (Developing countrieshave longer phase-out periods – seebelow.)

Production is defined as totalproduction minus any amounts usedas chemical feedstock or destroyed.Consumption is defined asproduction plus imports minusexports. Trade in recycled and usedODS is not included in thecalculation of production, in order toencourage recovery, reclamation andrecycling. ‘Essential uses’ for whichno alternatives have yet beenidentified are exempt from thecontrols; the main exemption iscurrently for CFCs for use aspropellants in metered doseinhalers for asthmatics.

Ozone SecretariatUNEP Nairobi

Meeting of theParties to the Protocol

UNEP Treasurer

ImplementationCommittee

Ad HocWorking Groups

Open endedWorking Group

Assessment Panels

UNDP UNEP UNIDO World Bank

Aerosols

Economics

Foams

Halons

Methyl Bromide

Refrigeration

Solvents

Vienna Convention for theProtection of the Ozone Layer

Montreal Protocol on substancesthat deplete the Ozone Layer

Executive Committeerepresenting Parties to the

Montreal Protocol

Implementing AgenciesImplementing Agencies

Multilateral FundSecretariat

ScientificEnvironmental

EffectsTechnology &

Economics

Conference of theParties to the Convention

13

1990: Meeting in London, parties agree to phase out CFCs and halons completely by the year 2000, and add phase-out dates for other CFCs, methylchloroform and carbon tetrachloride. Parties agree to create a mechanism to provide financial and technical assistance to developing countryparties, including a Multilateral Fund. Finland launches a fund for non-party countries.

Fig. 4.2 At the Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the ViennaConvention and the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, Beijing,China, 29 November - 3 December 1999.

Fig. 4.3 Plenary of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

The Protocol includes restrictions ontrade with non-parties to the treaty.These were included in order toencourage countries to join thetreaty, and also to prevent thepossibility of production of ODSmigrating to non-parties to escapethe controls. Parties were requiredto ban the import of Annex A ODS(CFCs and halons) from non-partiesfrom 1990 (one year after theProtocol came into force); exports tonon-parties were banned from 1993.Imports of goods containing CFCs(e.g. refrigerators) were also bannedfrom 1993. As new substances havebeen added to the control schedules,the trade provisions have beengradually extended to cover them aswell. The trade restrictions are notapplicable, however, against a non-party which is nevertheless incompliance with the controlschedules.

A requirement on parties tointroduce a licensing system forimports and exports of all categoriesof ODS, including new, used,recycled and reclaimed substances,was introduced in the 1997Montreal Amendment, and cameinto force in late 1999. The aim ofthe licensing system is to helptackle the growing illegal trade inODS, stemming from some users’attempts to avoid the cost ofreplacing machinery requiringbanned categories of chemicals.

Institutions and procedures

The main decision-making body ofthe Montreal Protocol is theMeeting of the Parties, which canamend the Protocol’s text and adjustits control schedules. Meeting

14

1991: An interim Multilateral Fund becomes operational with a three-year budget of $240 million – UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank are the initialimplementing agencies, later joined by UNIDO. UNEP launches the OzonAction Programme. Assessment panels operating under the Protocol concludethat even more stringent controls than those agreed by parties in 1990 are needed, including restrictions on the use of HCFCs. The panels alsoconclude that technologies are available to replace virtually all uses of controlled substances, and that the phase-out process is less expensivethan previously predicted.

annually, it reviews the controlmeasures at least every four yearson the basis of the availablescientific, environmental, technicaland economic information. TheOpen-Ended Working Group of theParties meets between full sessionsto develop and negotiaterecommendations for the fullMeeting.

The first Meeting establishedadvisory panels bringing togetherexperts from science, industry,governments and non-governmentalorganisations. These currentlycomprise:

• the Scientific AssessmentPanel, responsible for reviewingscientific knowledge on ozonedepletion;

• the Environmental EffectsAssessment Panel, surveyinginformation on the impact ofozone depletion and UV-Birradiation; and

• the Technology and EconomicAssessment Panel, analysingthe technical options for andthe economic costs ofcontrolling the use of ODS,including reviewingapplications for essential useexemptions; the TEAPfunctions largely throughsubsidiary technical optionscommittees, which currentlycover refrigeration and air-conditioning, foams, solvents,aerosols, halons, methylbromide, and economic options.

The reports the panels haveproduced for the key meetings of theparties have proved crucial ininforming the decisions ultimatelytaken, including the adjustments tothe control measures and theamendments to the Protocol.

The major findings and conclusionsof the three Assessment Panels arecontained in the Synthesis of theReports, published in 1999.

The Implementation Committee ofthe Protocol consists ofrepresentatives of ten parties, twofrom each of the five UN regions. Itreports cases of non-compliance tothe full meeting and recommendscourses of action; these can includeproviding technical or financialassistance from the MultilateralFund and the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), issuing cautions, orsuspending the party from theProtocol.

The Ozone Secretariat, part ofUNEP and based in Nairobi,provides support for all theactivities of both the MontrealProtocol and the ViennaConvention. It publishes theHandbook for the Ozone Treaties,containing up-to-date texts of theConvention and Protocol, decisionsof the meetings of the parties, andmuch other useful information.

Developing countries andthe Multilateral Fund

A key feature of the MontrealProtocol is its treatment ofdeveloping countries. Article 5permits a developing country withconsumption of ODS lower than aspecified limit (an ‘Article 5country’) to delay for ten years itscompliance with the controlmeasures set out in Article 2, ‘inorder to meet its basic domesticneeds’. In 1995 the parties agreedprecise control schedules for Article5 parties, with most substancesbeing scheduled for phase-out by2010 (2015 for methyl chloroformand methyl bromide and 2040 forHCFCs).

Article 10 of the Protocol providesfor a financial mechanism to meetthe incremental costs of thesecountries in phasing out ODS. TheMultilateral Fund was accordinglyestablished, as an interimmechanism in 1990, and in its finalform in 1992. Industrialised countryparties contribute to the Fundaccording to the standard UNassessment scale. Funding was setat $240 million for 1991–93,$455million for 1994–96, $466million for 1997–99 and $440 millionfor 2000–02 – a total of one and halfbillion dollars over twelve years.Over the first six years of the Fund,almost 90% of the promised fundingwas achieved, an excellent record foran international agreement (themain non-contributors were‘countries with economies intransition’ in eastern Europe and theformer Soviet Union).

The Fund has its own Secretariat(based in Montreal) and is directedby its Chief Officer who reports tothe Executive Committee of theFund, comprising representatives ofseven Article 5 and seven non-Article 5 countries selected by theannual meeting of the parties to theProtocol. The Fund operatesthrough four implementingagencies, each with slightlydifferent roles:

• UNEP’s Division of Technology,Industry and Economicsprovides clearing-housefunctions, which is a non-investment support (training,information exchange, etc), andhelps prepare countryprogrammes and refrigerantmanagement plans for low-consuming developing countries;

• the UN DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) organisesdemonstration and investment

15

1992: Meeting in Copenhagen, parties to the Montreal Protocol agree to speed up phase-out schedules for already controlled substances and to controlnew substances for developed countries – HCFCs, HBFCs and methyl bromide. A number of developed countries adopt faster timetables for phase-out of controlled substances. Mexico (a developing country) announces that it is prepared in principle to phase out CFC use by 2000, the existingdeadline for developed countries. The Multilateral Fund is officially established.

Fig. 4.4 Regional Workshop for the Central and Eastern European and Baltic States onImplementation Enforcement of National Licensing Systems in Hungary, supported by theGlobal Environment Facility.

Fig. 4.5 Training on methylbromide alternatives in Malawi, supported by the MultilateralFund.

projects, technical assistanceand feasibility studies;

• the UN Industrial DevelopmentOrganization (UNIDO) preparesand appraises investmentproject proposals andimplements phase-out schedulesat plant level;

• the World Bank concentrates onlarge-scale phase-out andinvestment projects at plant andcountry levels.

Each Article 5 country, assisted byone of these agencies, prepares acountry programme or an update,showing its present use of ODS andidentifying opportunities forreduction. The ‘incremental costs’which countries can claim mayinclude the incremental capitaloperating costs of conversion toalternative technologies and ODSsubstitutes. Recycling controlledsubstances, modifying or replacingequipment and costs of patents/royalties and training are examplesof incremental capital costs. TheFund’s Executive Committee hasdiscretionary powers to includecosts other than those listed. Arecent important development hasbeen the decision by the ExecutiveCommittee to help fund the phase-out of ODS production capacity inArticle 5 countries; during 1999,China, India and Brazil announcedtarget dates for the complete phase-out of CFC production capacity.

The Executive Committee approvesboth the country programmes (andtheir updates) and subsequentproposals for investment projectsand institutional strengthening. By31 March 2000, over US$ one billionhas been allocated to eliminate theconsumption and production of131,000 ODP tonnes of ODS in 117Article 5 countries.

16

1993: Parties to the Montreal Protocol agree not to allow any exemptions for the production of halons beyond the phase-out deadline agreed in Copenhagen,and approve a budget of $510 million for the Multilateral Fund for 1994–96.

1994: Total phase-out of halons in developed countries. Based on data submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in 1994, developed country parties’ consumptionof CFCs and halons dropped by about 50% between 1986 and 1992, while consumption rose for all controlled substances except halons.

Fig. 5. Worldwide production of Ozone Depleting Substances 1940 - 1997 (1000 metric tons).

5. The Impact of the Ozone Regime

The record of the ozoneregime

By May 2000, a total of 176countries had ratified the 1985Vienna Convention and 175 the1987 Montreal Protocol; 139 hadratified the 1990 LondonAmendment, 106 the 1992Copenhagen Amendment, 37 the1997 Montreal Amendment and 1the1999 Beijing Amendment.Production and consumption figuresfor the various controlledsubstances have changeddramatically. By the end of 1998(the latest date for which full data isavailable), production of the originalcontrolled CFCs had fallen by 95%in industrialised countries (theremaining production being devotedto essential use exemptions and

exports to developing countries);and production of the originalcontrolled halons had fallen by99.8%. Although both productionand consumption had increased indeveloping countries, as expectedand allowed by the Protocol, overallworld production had declined byabout 88% (CFCs) and 84% (halons)from the base year, 1986.

The growth in concentrations of themajor ozone-depleting chemicals inthe atmosphere has clearly slowed.The total combined abundance ofozone-depleters in the loweratmosphere peaked in 1994 and isnow slowly declining – though thefall in total chlorine is offset to anextent by a continued rise in totalbromine.

Concentrations in the upperatmosphere, where the ozone layeris located, lag by up to six years,and it is believed that the totalconcentrations of chlorine andbromine in the stratosphere mayhave peaked before the year 2000(full data is not yet available) – thegrowth rate of the concentrations ofkey chlorine compounds hascertainly slowed. However, currentaverage ozone losses (6% innorthern mid-latitudes in winter/spring, 5% in southern mid-latitudes all year round, 50% in theAntarctic spring and 15% in theArctic spring) and increases in UV-Birradiation (7%, 6%, 130% and 22%respectively) may increase further ifthe impact of climate change onozone depletion gets worse.

17

1995: Tenth anniversary of the Vienna Convention celebrated in Vienna. Montreal Protocol assessment panels report that phase-out is well advanced inmost developed countries and that developing countries are also making progress, though consumption of controlled substances is increasing insome. Meeting in Vienna, the parties to the Protocol agree to tougher phase-out schedules for HCFCs and methyl bromide for developed countries,agree schedules for all substances for developing countries, and consider likely cases of non-compliance in some transition economies. EuropeanUnion achieves total phase-out of CFCs.

The impact of the Protocol, and itsadjustments and amendments, canbe seen most clearly in the projectedconcentrations of ozone-depletingchemicals in its absence. Withoutthe Protocol, the ‘world that wasavoided’ would have experienced aconcentration of the chemicals inthe atmosphere of at least 17 partsper billion of equivalent effectivechlorine by 2050 – five times today’svalue and nine times the value nowprojected for 2050. Ozone depletionwould be at least 50% at northern,and 70% at southern, mid-latitudes,giving double and quadruple levelsof surface UV-B. And all thesefigures would be growing.

The success of the Montreal Protocolhas avoided the substantial impactson human health and well-beingthat scenario would bring. Instead,assuming that the Protocol’s controlschedules continue to be adhered to,scientists expect a steady recoveryof the ozone layer to its pre-industrial strength.The recoverywill be much slower than the rate ofdamage, due to the slow rate atwhich natural processes remove thechemicals from the atmosphere –and it could be delayed by furthervolcanic eruptions, particularly coldArctic winters or complexinteractions with other sources ofpollution. The next 10–20 years aretherefore likely to see ozone levelsremain at their lowest, but fullrecovery still seems likely to beabout the middle of the century.

Alternatives toozone-depletingsubstances

This success story of internationalenvironmental diplomacy hasproved possible because science and

industry, stimulated by the clearobjectives of the Montreal Protocol,have been able to develop andcommercialise alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals. These take theform not only of replacementsubstances but also of alternative, or‘not-in-kind’, technologies.

In general, industrialised countrieshave found ending their use of CFCsmuch easier than was originallyanticipated. Not-in-kind substituteshave proved particularly importantin the electronics sector, where ‘no-clean’ techniques have often endedthe use of CFCs as solvents. Thefoam-blowing sector has replacedCFCs with water, carbon dioxideand hydrocarbons, as well asHCFCs. The refrigeration and air-conditioning sector has largely usedHCFCs as alternatives, but newequipment is increasingly usingnon-ozone depletinghydrofluorocarbons (HFCs- thoughthese are poweful greenhouse gases,reinforcing the case for the ozoneand climate change regimes to workclosely together), ammonia (thechemical used in the very firstrefrigerators) or hydrocarbons.Stockpiling, or ‘banking’, in whichCFCs have been produced beforephase-out for use afterwards, hashelped to extend development andtesting periods of the substitutes.

Consuming industries have also usedbanking to provide extra time todevelop substitutes for halons for fire-fighting. Other fire-extinguishingagents such as carbon dioxide, water,foam and dry powder are now widelyused. Alternative approaches, such asgood fire prevention practices, use offire-resistant materials andappropriate designs for buildingshave significantly reduced the need

for halon systems, and total phase-out in industrialised countries wasachieved smoothly by the end of 1993.

Phase-out efforts in industrialisedcountries are now concentrating onHCFCs and methyl bromide. Partiesto the Montreal Protocol areencouraged to ensure that HCFCsare used only as direct replacementsfor other ODS where other moreenvironmentally suitablealternatives are not available.HCFCs were critical in meeting theearly CFC phase-out goals, but aregenerally considered much lessimportant for new equipmentavailable in the medium and longterm.

The phase-out of methyl bromidehas proved a more difficult issue.This is partly because it concerns alargely different set of producersand consumers to those involved influorocarbons, and also becausealternatives are less easilyavailable. Its major use is inagriculture, mainly for fumigationto control pests and weeds; suchtreatment is often required byimporters. (Methyl bromide used forquarantine and pre-shipment (QPS)purposes is currently exemptedfrom the controls.) In 1998,however, UNEP’s Methyl BromideTechnical Options Committeeidentified technically feasiblealternatives for more than 95% ofnon-QPS uses, and many countrieshave already subjected the chemicalto controls in any case because ofconcerns about toxicity. In 1997 theparties agreed to bring forward theultimate phase-out date for methylbromide from 2010 to 2005 forindustrialized countries while fordeveloping countries the phase outdate was set to 2015.

18

1996: Total phase-out of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform in developed countries, and of HBFCs in all countries. Parties to the MontrealProtocol agree the third replenishment of the Multilateral Fund at $540 million for 1997–99, and discuss the growing problem of illegal trade inCFCs.

1997: Tenth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol celebrated in Montreal. Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol brings forward controls onmethyl bromide and adopts Montreal Amendment, introducing a system of licenses for imports and exports of all categories of ODS.

New challenges

The ozone regime has grown anddeveloped through different phases.Meetings of the Parties in the earlyyears concentrated mainly onidentifying ozone-depletingsubstances, agreeing on controlmeasures and phasing outsubstances in industrialisedcountries. In recent years attentionhas been focused more on issues ofimplementation, particularly indeveloping countries and incountries with economies intransition (CEITs).

Since 1995, the ozone regime hasfaced a number of cases of non-compliance by several easternEuropean and former Soviet states,caused by the difficulties followingthe massive restructuring of theireconomies. These states are noteligible for assistance from theMultilateral Fund. This has beenparticularly true in Russia, theregion’s main consumer andproducer. Resources are availablefor phase-out of ODS in thesetransition economies from theGlobal Environment Facility, whichwas created in 1991 to providefinance for environmentallysustainable development. TheFacility has so far approved $148million for projects and activities forphasing out ozone-depletingsubstances in 14 countries witheconomies in transition. TheProtocol’s ImplementationCommittee has worked with theparties in question, and with theGEF and the ImplementingAgencies, to ensure that theyimprove their data reporting, drawup and implement new phase-outschedules and abide by specific

trade restrictions. All the partiesconcerned have been or are beingbrought back into compliance,without the need for suspensionfrom the Protocol (the ultimatesanction available) – a considerableachievement for an internationalenvironmental agreement. At the1999 Meeting of the Parties,following a World Bank specialfunding initiative and the thirdtranche of GEF funding, Russiaaccepted a target date of June 2000for the phase-out of productioncapacity.

The second new problem is thegrowth of illegal trade, which oftenfollows any decision to ban the useof a particular substance. In areaswhere CFC replacements – or, morefrequently, the new equipment thatmay be required to use them – haveproved more expensive than theoriginals, a black market hasdeveloped. The problem has beenmost acute in the US, where theCFC excise tax introduced toencourage phase-out createdadditional incentives for illegalimports; in 1994–95 the moneyvalue of smuggled CFCs wereestimated to be the second only toillicit drugs, smuggled mainlythrough Miami. The US authorities,however, responded vigorously tothe problem and have arrested andsentenced many individuals oncounts of smuggling CFCs andevading federal excise taxes. Thesteady replacement of the CFC-using machinery has also, of course,contributed to a fall in demand andtherefore in trade. The EuropeanUnion, and some other countries,have also experienced illegalimports of various categories ofODS, and have put in place

regulations and systems to controlthis activity.

A different approach to stop illegaltrade is to eliminate availablestocks of new CFCs and halons, byclosing down existing productionfacilities. The Government of theRussian Federation is working withthe GEF and with donors to close itsCFC production facilities and tophase out completely itsconsumption of CFCs by the year2000. The GEF has contributed $60million and 10 donor countries havetogether pledged additional $19million to support this effort. Chinais now the world’s largest producerof CFCs and halons. TheMultilateral Fund has allocated$150 million to help close downproduction facilities for thesechemicals over the next 10 years inChina. The Fund has also agreed toallocate to India, the second largestdeveloping country producer, $82million for closing down productionfacilities in that country.

19

6. The Future of the Ozone Regime

Fig. 6.1 Effect of the international agreements on ozone-depleting-stratospheric chlorine/bromine.

1998: Parties discuss ways of reducing various exemptions for ODS use, and spend increasing amounts of time on non-compliance matters.

1999 Assessment panels report that rate of ozone depletion is slowing down, and may peak before the year 2000 at a lower level than previouslythought; clear evidence is available from atmospheric observations that the Montreal Protocol is proving successful. Virtually all developing countriesmeet their first

The Montreal Protocol iswidely regarded as one ofthe most effective

international environmentaltreaties in existence. It has provedto be a flexible but robust regime,evolving over time in response tonew developments in science andtechnology.

In the mid-1980s the internationaldebate demonstrated considerabledoubt over the extent and causes ofozone depletion and the feasibilityof action. Just fifteen years later,the last Meeting of the Parties ofthe century, in Beijing in December1999, agreed the fifth major set ofrevisions to the control schedulesestablished in 1987. CFCs, whoseproduction levels under theoriginal agreement were still tohave been 80% of 1986 levels, werephased out completely inindustrialised countries at the endof 1995. Production of halons,which was simply to have beencapped under the originalagreement, ceased at the end of1993. Other chemicals not eventhought of as ozone-depletingsubstances two decades ago havebeen brought under the coverage ofthe agreements and their owncontrol schedules progressivelytightened. Developing countries,who were hardly present inMontreal in 1987, have joined theProtocol in large numbers and, inthe middle of 1999, on the evidenceavailable so far, virtually all ofthem met their first target underits control schedules.

The Protocol has been widelyhailed as a model for futureinternational environmental

agreements – and, indeed, many ofits features have been incorporatedinto, or adapted for, other treaties.The progress of the negotiations inmany ways provides a model forinternational treaty negotiation,fully involving participants from allkey groups: governments, industry,scientists and NGOs. The flexibilitybuilt into the Protocol in the form ofits review process for targets andamendments has allowed acontinuous evolution to respond tochanges in both scientific evidenceand technological developments.The limits on supply imposed by the

control schedules have encouragedthe rapid development of cost-effective alternatives, which in turnhas helped to reduce demand.

Any effective internationalagreement in the modern worldneeds to recognise the special needsof developing countries. In theMontreal Protocol this has takenthe form of the provision of financialassistance and technology transfer,the decision-making procedureswhich allot particular weights toArticle 5 countries, and the graceperiod before implementation of the

20

Fig. 6.2 Ozone Publications

phase-out schedules. The evolvingphase-out schedules and the tradeprovisions have encouraged newlyindustrialising countries to moveout of old technology and acceleratetheir own phase-outs even when notrequired to do so under the terms ofthe agreement.

Perhaps the most important featureof the ozone regime is the way inwhich it has brought together anarray of different participants inpursuit of a common end. Scientistshave provided the information, withsteadily increasing degrees ofprecision, on the causes and effectsof ozone depletion. Industry,responding to the stimulus providedby the control measures, hasdeveloped alternatives far morerapidly and more cheaply thaninitially thought possible, and hasparticipated fully in the debatesover further phase-out. NGOs andthe media are the essentialchannels of communication, andeducation, with the peoples of theworld in whose name the measureshave been taken; in the early yearsin particular, they wereinstrumental in spurring decision-makers to take decisive action, andnow still help to maintain pressurefor further steps. Governments haveworked well together in patientlynegotiating agreements acceptableto a range of countries with widelyvarying circumstances, aims andresources – and showed courage andforesight in putting theprecautionary principle into effectbefore the scientific evidence wasentirely clear. And throughout itshistory, UNEP has provided boththe catalyst for action and themeans of agreeing andimplementing it – the global

target for CFC controls (freeze in production and consumption) in July. Meeting of the Parties in Beijing agrees fourth replenishment of theMultilateral Fund ($476 million for 2000–02), sets phase-out schedules for the production allowable in developed countries to meet developingcountries’ basic domestic needs, and agrees Beijing Amendment, adding one new substance (bromochloromethane) to the control schedules.

21

2000 Fifteenth anniversary of the signing of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.2002: Total phase-out of bromochloromethane in developed and developing countries.2005: Total phase-out of methyl bromide in developed countries.2010: Total phase-out of CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride in developing countries.2015: Total phase-out of methyl chloroform and methyl bromide in developing countries.2030: Total phase-out of HCFCs in developed countries.2040: Total phase-out of HCFCs in developing countries.

BEIJING DECLARATION ON RENEWED COMMITMENT TO THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER

We, the Ministers of the Environment and heads of delegations of the Parties to the Vienna Conventionfor the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the OzoneLayer,

Having participated, at the invitation of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, in the fifthmeeting of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the EleventhMeeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, from 29November to 3 December 1999, in Beijing, China,

Having held in-depth discussions on important issues relating to the protection of the ozone layer andthe implementation of the Convention and the Protocol,

Recalling the achievements made to date in this field while earnestly seeking to address the challengeswe will face in the future,

Reaffirming, at the threshold of a new millennium, our commitment to the protection of the ozone layerthrough a serious implementation of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol in order toachieve the phasing-out of ozone-depleting substances to protect the environmental security of presentand future generations,

Declare:

1. That we are pleased to note that major progress has been achieved in the implementation of theMontreal Protocol in the past decade since the Helsinki Declaration was adopted, as testified by thefact that the Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 ceased the production andconsumption of CFCs from 1 January 1996, while the Parties operating under paragraph 1 ofArticle 5 committed themselves to freezing their production and consumption of CFCs at theaverage level of the period 1995-1997, from 1 July 1999;

2. That we are further pleased to note that the reduction and phase-out of other ozone-depletingsubstances are also proceeding in line with or in some cases faster than the control measures wehave agreed upon in the past Meetings of the Parties and welcome the further progress agreedupon at this Meeting of the Parties;

3. That we take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation for the efforts made towards thisprogress by Governments, international organizations, industry, experts and other relevant groups;

4. That we are fully aware, however, that we cannot afford to rest on our laurels, since scientists haveinformed us that the ozone hole has reached record proportions and the ozone layer recovery is along way from being achieved;

5. That we are keenly aware that the Parties will have to face new challenges, as we have nowentered a new period of substantive reduction of ozone-depleting substances from 1 July 1999 and,therefore, must ensure the continuation and development of our significant financial and technicalcooperation under paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol, to enable all countries totake full advantage of benefits offered by the latest technological advances, including thecontinuation of the initiatives to ensure funding for the low-volume-consuming countries;

6. That we therefore appeal to all of the Parties to demonstrate a stronger political will and take moreeffective action to fulfil the obligations under the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, andto urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna Conventionand the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments;

7. That we also appeal to the relevant Parties to take all appropriate measures to address illegal tradein ozone-depleting substances and to safeguard the achievements attained to date;

8. That we call upon the Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to continue to maintainadequate funding and to promote the expeditious transfer of environmentally sound technologies,under the Montreal Protocol, to the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, to help themfulfil their obligations; and also call upon Parties operating under paragraph 1 of article 5 to takeall appropriate measures necessary to secure the efficient use of the resources provided by theParties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5;

9. That we further appeal to the international community to demonstrate more concern for the issues ofozone layer protection and for the protection of the global atmosphere in general, taking intoaccount the need to promote social and economic development in all countries.

institution that is required to meeta truly global problem.

The leadership and vision of theoriginal negotiators in Vienna andMontreal resulted in a treaty thatworked – that halted and turnedback the progressive deterioration ofthe Earth’s protective ozone layer.The same leadership and vision willstill be needed in this new century,as the international communityturns its attention to meeting thenew challenges faced by theinternational ozone regime inrestoring the stratospheric ozonelayer once more to full health.

22