MONTREAL PROTOCOL

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (MP) of 1987 is an international agreement to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from harmful synthetic chemical compounds. The targets of the MP are synthetic chemical substances that destroy an upper level protective ozone layer of the Earth and whose destructive behavior persists over decades if not centuries, depending on the chemical compound. The MP is considered an exemplary case of science-based policy making, adroit diplomacy, innovative treaty language, and regulatory collaboration, and is the most successfully implemented global environmental treaty in history. It is also the best example to date of global action based on the precautionary principle.

The Issue and Efforts Leading to the Montreal Protocol

Ozone is a bluish gas, harmful to breathe, that is composed of three atoms of oxygen. Nearly 90 percent of the planetary ozone is in the stratosphere, an atmospheric region above the troposphere extending from about 10 to 50 kilometers in altitude. In the 1930s, scientists Dorothy Fisk and Charles Abbott discovered how to measure atmospheric ozone, and described the critical role an ozone layer plays as a global sunscreen. Stratospheric ozone absorbs a band of ultraviolet radiation (UVb), preventing most of it from reaching the ground where it is particularly harmful to living organisms (causing skin cancer and cataracts, interrupting food chains, and more).

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), now recognized as ozone depleting substances (ODS), were hailed for being safe, friendly, and widely applicable when first invented about the same time that the benefits of the ozone layer were discovered. Besides their original application in refrigeration—where they were both safer and more efficient—CFCs were manufactured for an extremely wide variety of uses: flexible urethane foams (for carpeting, furniture, and automobile seats); rigid polyurethane foams (as insulation for buildings and refrigeration units); blowing agents in non-urethane foams (polyurethane sheet products, foam trays, fast-food wrappers); and refrigerants in automobile air conditioners, and industrial and commercial air conditioners known as chillers. CFCs became an important solvent for the electronics and aerospace industries as a cleaning agent for circuit boards and scientific instruments. Halons, another set of halogenated hydrocarbons, were widely used as flame suppressants in firefighting. Carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, and the agricultural chemical methyl bromide used as a soil fumigant and to protect stored agricultural products from pest-related deterioration, are implicated as well.

In the 1970s natural scientists (notably, Richard Stolarski, Ralph Cicerone, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina) questioned whether these chemical compounds were benign in the stratosphere. When CFCs reach the stratosphere, ultra-violet radiation causes them to decompose releasing a chlorine atom that in turn destroys ozone molecules. They concluded that a single chlorine atom released in the stratosphere could eliminate thousands of ozone molecules through a catalytic chain reaction; that this reaction would continue for the life of the chemicals (40–150 years); and that CFC concentrations in the ozone layer could be expected to reach one to thirty times their current levels with disastrous consequences for the integrity of the ozone layer.

For the next ten years, debates over the science of ozone depletion raged, reflecting different industrial, political, and scientific worldviews and the symbolic resources brought to bear on the issue (Dotto 1978).

Much of the early empirical evidence of a "hole" in the stratospheric ozone layer was discounted by scientists who simply assumed that the extremely low Dobson instrument measurements were due to technical malfunctions. Indeed, the 1982 ozone measurement devices aboard the Nimbus 7 satellite had been programmed to flag low values as erroneous (Gribbin 1988). By the mid-1980s, however, scientists such as Shigeru Chubachi and Susan Solomon provided empirical evidence of stratospheric ozone depletion (Andersen and Sarma 2003). Consensus that an ozone hole was swiftly developing left open to debate whether the hole was caused by nature or by invented chemicals. Nevertheless, and importantly, even in the face of continuing uncertainty, the world moved from demands for more research to demands for precautionary regulation in a relatively short period of time.

In 1985, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Executive Director Mostafa Tolba led Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, and the United States to adopt the Vienna Convention (VC). This was the first official version of international understandings and responsibilities regarding the protection of the stratospheric ozone layer. The MP, signed in September 1987, followed (Benedick 1991). By 2003, 184 nations had ratified the MP.

Implementation and Evolution of the Montreal Protocol

Parties to the MP agreed to use national consumption/production figures as a baseline from which to measure targets for phaseout, permitting flexibility so that each nation could determine how best to meet its national phaseout commitment. Article 6 established periodic reviews by scientific and technical experts so that the treaty could be adjusted with the benefit of fast-paced developments in science and technology. With amendments of the MP, the twin principle of differentiated responsibility/capability was adopted. Funds, expertise, and technology transfer supported developing countries that were not major contributors to the problem and whose domestic economic priorities were not in line with phaseout. (Article 5 lists 136 such nations in 2003.) The Global Environment Facility took responsibility for helping Countries-With-Economies-in-Transition (high ODS, economically troubled), typically members of the former Soviet Union.

Originally the treaty committed parties to reduce, by 1996, the use of CFCs by 50 percent, using their national 1986 baseline values. Failure to sign the treaty imposed import/export restrictions that encouraged wide participation, especially given that total, worldwide phaseout of the harmful substances meant that non-parties without production capability would not have access to supplies. This also prevented companies seeking to avoid controls on ODS from moving their production facilities to non-parties and exporting back into the countries controlled by the MP (Brack 1996).

By the time the treaty went into force on January 1, 1989, there was already a strong push for amending it, as anticipated. In 1990 the London Amendments provided for a total ban of CFCs by the end of the twentieth century, added other ODS to the list of controlled substances, created the Multilateral Fund (MLFund) to help developing countries phase out, instituted a ten-year grace period for developing country compliance, mandated technology transfer from rich countries, and reclassified hydrofluorcarbons (HCFCs) as transitional substances. The Copenhagen Amendments (1992) accelerated the compliance schedule, confirmed the MLFund permanently, and suggested new compounds for the control list, notably HCFCs and methyl bromide. Subsequent adjustments (Montreal 1997, Beijing 1999) replenished the MLFund and tightened control measures.

Administratively the treaty established the MP Secretariat (Nairobi) with K. M. Sarma as the first Executive Secretary and, after 1990, the MLFund Secretariat (Montreal), first headed by Omar El-Arini. The MLFund Executive Committee is composed of equal numbers of developed and developing countries. Four United Nations agencies support the phaseout through activities such as training, information sharing, institutional strengthening, conferences, and consultant services. Each Article 5 country has established a National Ozone Unit; these are strengthened by regional networking activities of the UNEP.

Three autonomous advisory panels—in Science, Environmental Impacts, and Technology and Economic Assessment (TEAP)—report directly to the parties. These volunteer expert review panels are the primary source of the confidence with which the parties have frequently amended the treaty in light of new, credible science and technology.

Over the first decade of the MP implementation, the TEAP, under the collaborative leadership of Stephen O. Andersen and Lambert Kuijpers, rose to preeminence as the worldwide authority on technically credible, economically possible options for speedy phaseout. Other than the Economic Options Committee, the TEAP was organized by industrial sector, and includes divisions such as the Technical Option Committee (TOC) for aerosols, foams, halons, methyl bromide, refrigeration, and solvents. The TEAP found and created new product designs, innovative practices, and industry-wide alterations in production processes that were harmful to the ozone layer.

The TEAP was built on the principle of dynamic collaboration across sciences, technologies, industries, governmental ministries, and citizen groups from around the world. Industries from Canada, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States, among others, contributed more than 50 percent of the approximately 700 TEAP members.

TEAP experts were not required to share the epistemology of precaution. However they were expected to work with disregard of national or industrial interests and toward global solutions with a can-do spirit. They did this by developing strong social bonds of trust and respect (a tight community) and by forging collaborative norms of problem solving, boundary spanning, and information sharing. The effective regulatory community that emerged from the TEAP—largely the result of collaborative leadership as well as linkages to broader constituencies in government, industry, and the academy—became valuable and necessary resources in the creation and transfer of knowledge so essential to MP success (Canan and Reichman 2002).

The one area where phaseout has lagged is addressing the issue of methyl bromide, in which commitment to planetary concerns has not overridden industrial interests and national politics. Nominations for Critical Use Exemptions for methyl bromide have used criteria that differ from the criteria for other ODS. For other ODS, an essential use is defined as one that "is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects)" (Decision IV/25 of the Parties, cited in DeCanio and Norman, 2003). An oft-cited example was the exemption for CFC use for Metered Dose Inhalers (MDIs) having life-and-death criticality. However the MP allows nominations for critical use exemptions to the methyl bromide phaseout based on claims that alternatives are not economically feasible or that the phaseout would cause significant market disruption. As a result, some parties have requested exemptions for a range of methyl bromide applications, including tobacco, pet food, flowers, and golf courses (DeCanio and Norman 2003).

Despite the tremendous progress that has been made accelerating phaseout dates, banning additional chemicals, and identifying, creating, and adopting alternative technologies, the long life of ODS means that restoring the earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer will remain a serious challenge throughout the twenty-first century.

PENELOPE CANAN NANCY REICHMAN

SEE ALSO Global Climate Change;International Relations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, Stephen O., and K. M. Sarma. (2003). Protecting the Ozone Layer: The United Nations History. London: Earthscan. An authoritative and exhaustively documented history of the science and diplomacy that led to the Montreal Protocol; contains a detailed account of the contribution of business, industry, and government to develop environmentally sound alternative technologies to restore the ozone layer. Provides a careful record of the role of the media and non-governmental organizations in evolving the global response to the destruction of stratospheric ozone. It is the official UN history of the Montreal Protocol.

Benedick, Richard. (1991). Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Provides a detailed account from the perspective of the senior U.S. negotiator of the Montreal Protocol. Features interpretations of the bargaining motivation and stratagems of other countries. Stimulated many others to tell the story from their own perspective.

Brack, Duncan. (1996). International Trade and the Montreal Protocol. London: Earthscan. Covers the role of trade as a governing principle for international agreements and how variable national economic positions view trade sanctions as impetus for participation and compliance.

Canan, Penelope, and Nancy Reichman. (2002). Ozone Connections: Expert Networks in Global Environmental Governance. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. A sociological analysis of the extent and effectiveness of a small number of experts, organized in communities of practice, were instrumental in protecting the ozone layer. Looking systematically at the connection between technology, global environmental policy, and the social connections of experts, the authors focus on the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol. By combining formal network analysis, biographical interviews and participant observation, they demonstrate that treaty implementation relies on social relations, trust and the collaborative leadership of institutional entrepreneurs.

Dotto, Lydia, and Harold Schiff. (1978). The Ozone War. New York: Doubleday and Company. The most comprehensive early account of conflict among scientists, citizens, industry, and political activists. It was published during the decade when UENP and national environmental ministries were created and environmental law was invented, but long before there was much hope of stratospheric ozone protection.

Gribbin, John R. (1988). The Hole in the Sky: Man's Threat to the Ozone Layer. New York: Bantam. Documents the triumph of science and diplomacy in securing the Montreal Protocol.

INTERNET RESOURCE

DeCanio, S. J., and C. S. Norman. "Economic Aspects of Nominations for Critical Use of Methyl Bromide Under Terms of The Montreal Protocol." Included in UNEP Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, May 2003 Progress Report. Available at http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~decanio/papers/MB-UK9r.pdf. A sophisticated analysis of the economics of critical uses of ODS revealing the politics of changing definitions risk.