"LESSONS FROM THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL"
The CGCP was one of Environment Canada's partners in the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, held on September 13th, 1997. The following statement was issued by the International Advisory Committee and National Organizing Committee, and does not necessarily represent the position of Environment Canada or The Royal Society of Canada.
Sponsors | International Advisory Committee | National Organizing Committee
A statement of findings from the Montreal Protocol 10th Anniversary Colloquium, held on September 13, 1997 at Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montréal, Québec, Canada, issued on behalf of the International Advisory Committee and National Organizing Committee.
The main lesson from a decade of experience with the Montreal Protocol is that establishing the reality of the threat is a prerequisite to purposeful international action. Once the threat is acknowledged, governments and societies have demonstrated their willingness to accept the costs associated with informed action provided the latter does not jeopardize major established social, medical, economic or technological benefits. Industry is ingenious in finding alternative ways of delivering these benefits. In the final analysis sound information, effective institutions, a spirit of cooperation and inspired individuals, all contribute to bridging political differences in favour of the pursuit of the common interest.
Introduction
On September 16, 1987, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, an agreement under the 1985 Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer, was signed by 24 countries. Today, the number of Parties to the Protocol has grown to 162, accounting for more than 95% of the people of planet Earth.
Indeed, the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Protocol is a cause for global celebration. We have learned that international environmental agreements can work and are workable. For that achievement, the world community is to be congratulated. The Montreal Protocol underscores the universal recognition that nations are interdependent; that the ozone layer cannot be restored and protected without the active participation of all the countries of the world - developing and developed.
The world was up to the job
On this anniversary, we celebrate the process of reaching and strengthening an important global commitment along with the building of trust among governments, industry and communities; a commitment not driven by narrow economic or political interests but rather through consensus on the need to act.
The success of the Protocol has been acknowledged even by skeptics of the effectiveness of international environmental agreements. The Worldwatch Institute, in its State of the World 1997 Report, notes, "At a time when progress in reversing other global environmental trends is distressingly slow, it is reassuring to see that in responding to the threat of ozone depletion, the world was up to the job." Now we must continue our work.
The movement to renew the commitments of the Montreal Protocol, in the spirit of 1987, will help establish the necessary guidelines for continuing global cooperation in protecting the ozone layer.
Background
At the 10th Anniversary Colloquium held on September 13, 1997, the participants reviewed the important progress achieved under the Montreal Protocol from several perspectives and pondered the lessons learned from ten years of experience.
The Colloquium examined the central roles played by the natural and social sciences, policy, and technology as well as science and technology assessment in the development and implementation of the Protocol. The following is presented to the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol on behalf of the National Organizing Committee and International Advisory Committee of the Colloquium.
Overview
It is clear that the public's attention has been seized by the ozone depletion issue, driven by health concerns for UV-radiation exposure, better awareness and knowledge about radiation and its health effects, compelling images of the deepening Antarctic ozone hole and effective media liaison by advocacy groups. Indeed, public support for action combined with the efforts of governments, diplomats, industry, scientists and concerned citizens worldwide have been key to the achievements of the Protocol.
Hailed as a model for other international environmental agreements, the Protocol owes its success to the collegial and cooperative approach it worked to establish, especially between developed and developing countries. This was a highly effective way to tackle the problem. Its targeted, non-punitive, apolitical and science-based approach in working with the biggest consumers of ozone depleting substances, i.e., industrialized countries, has also borne fruit in achieving reduction objectives over the last decade. There could be no better example of the power of "Working Together".
Through the work of the Protocol, scientific consensus on the dangers of ozone depletion was achieved and perhaps for the first time diplomats listened to the advice of scientists as they explained the real threat facing the planet. Through the work of the Protocol, industrialized nations and developing countries forged an innovative partnership in a global effort Through the work of the Protocol, the world has received new awareness, new science, new technology and a new form of cooperation.
Significant challenges remain as the Protocol launches into its second decade, notably harmonization of commitments, preventing illegal production and smuggling, and continuing to advance control provisions for ozone-depleting substances. The objective must be to reinvigorate commitment of all parties to the Protocol and its guiding principle: "The delicate balance supporting human life on earth depends on the ozone layer."
The main lesson from a decade of experience with the Montreal Protocol is that establishing the reality of the threat is a prerequisite to purposeful international action. Once the threat is acknowledged, governments and societies have demonstrated their willingness to accept the costs associated with informed action provided the latter does not jeopardize major established social, medical, economic or technological benefits. Industry is ingenious in finding alternative ways of delivering these benefits. In the final analysis sound information, effective institutions, a spirit of cooperation and inspired individuals, all contribute to bridging political differences in favour of the pursuit of the common interest.
Natural Sciences: What we have learned
Vital to the success of the Protocol, the scientific contribution to the issue arose from a broad base of academic research, the quest to better understand our world, and mission-oriented science to address problems. The science underlying the Protocol evolved gradually; from research on the structure of the atmosphere, the spectrum of solar radiation and its effects on organisms; and from studies to improve weather forecasting and of environmental concerns over emissions from supersonic transport aircraft. Maintaining a base of research remains imperative.
Atmospheric monitoring has been essential to understanding the reality of the threat and its evolution - the accumulation of ozone depleting substances in the atmosphere, and their effect on the ozone layer. With such key data, the need for action to stop the build up of these compounds could be appreciated along with the realization that continual monitoring of the atmosphere is essential. It was also realized that while progress has been made, (in the first eight years following the signature of the Protocol, worldwide consumption of ozone-depleting substances dropped by 73 percent) there is still much to be achieved. If all the countries of the world were to meet their obligations, the ozone layer would only fully recover by the year 2050 at the earliest.
An improved understanding of ultraviolet radiation has provided the catalyst for actively pursuing the aims of the Protocol, and in the case of human health, has helped educate people to the hazard of sun exposure. A lack of good understanding of the effects of increased UV radiation on ecosystem and human health remains a concern.
The Protocol acted as a stimulus to new insights in the ozone layer science and improved understanding useful in dealing with the threat of climate variability and change. This is yet another example of how progress in one area helps build the knowledge base for another issue.
The lesson from the past ten years is the lesson of history; that environmental science and knowledge are an essential investment, much less expensive than ignorance.
Social sciences: the success of the Protocol Policy
If the Montreal Protocol serves as a model for other international environmental agreements, it is most likely due to the realistic way it addressed the issue and the cooperative spirit it engendered.
From the outset, it was understood that the pressure on other resources, availability of clean water and adequate food, tend to push global issues such as ozone depletion down on the national priority list of developing countries, just as pressures of national deficit, debt and unemployment have in developed countries. So the Protocol established a partnership based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, recognizing that the circumstances of the low consumption countries, operating under Article 5, are different from those of the developed world. And since the problem originated in the industrialized world, it was there that action was initially taken, while giving developing countries a grace period. Further differentiation in the implementation was made for countries with economies in transition.
The most important feature of the Protocol was the innovative, dynamic and flexible arrangements that it put in place. The crafters of the new ozone environmental regime designed it in order to facilitate the integration of science into policy thereby allowing for adjusting phase-out schedules and controlling all ozone-depleting substances, not just those initially identified in the Protocol. They facilitated its implementation not only through the promotion of new principles of international cooperation, such as that of common but differentiated responsibilities, but also through the creation of new institutions, such as the implementation committee and the Multilateral Fund. The innovative approach adopted by the Montreal Protocol in the field of rule-making and rule-implementation constitutes a major contribution to the development of international environmental law. Thus, ten years later, the pioneers of 1987 have bequeathed the international community a unique international instrument whose effectiveness continuously improves as scientific knowledge mandates and the political context allows. Subsequent agreements continue to benefit from these innovations.
Financial and technological transfers, along with the potential of trade restrictions, have proven a significant stimulus to action. Other necessary measures comprised facilitating and sometimes funding the establishment of adequate domestic environmental legislation, cost-effective administrative systems and other incremental costs of adoption of technology. A targeted, non-punitive approach has assisted in cases of non--compliance.
Of particular success was the bilateral cooperation generated by the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund, established in 1990 with the aim of providing financial and technical assistance so that developing countries could meet their treaty obligations at no net cost to their economies.
Since the fund was established it has allocated over $1 billion for more than 1000 activities in 102 Article 5 countries. It is clear that the funding commitments from industrialized countries must be maintained if the gains made are not to be jeopardized. The work of the World Bank, UNDP, UNIDO and UNEP have all been significant, together with some highly effective bilateral cooperation.
The next decade will be a crucial period for the Protocol. Obligations for real reductions in developing country use of ozone-depleting substances reach their deadlines testing their resolve and, importantly, that of developed countries to meet legitimate financial and technical cooperation requirement.
Technology: the need to innovate
The Protocol has had a marked impact on technology, specifically where it concerns the ban on CFCs, spawning a high level of innovation and business opportunity. Just as the electronic highway has revolutionized communications and forced the world to adapt accordingly, so too has the Protocol in stimulating the development of technology alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals for uses such as refrigeration, foams, solvents, metal cleaning, dry cleaning, fire protection and aerosols. Business, industry, governments and consumers all recognize the need to evolve and innovate.
In accepting the ozone challenge, corporations can enhance their marketing strategies and respond more directly to consumer awareness by being the first in the marketplace to introduce safe products, so benefitting from a better public image and gaining a competitive edge.
Most of the initial cost estimates for technology substitutes proved too high. Industry costs were lowered when the creativity of engineers and business people was directed at the issue, and through tax incentives for research and development along with industry sector cooperation in pre-competitive research.
Here again, the Protocol relied on a balanced approach, recognizing that certain products, such as the metered dose inhaler (used to treat asthma), should be designated an "essential use exemption", and not be banned until appropriate alternatives were found.
There are now practical technology alternatives for virtually all uses of ozone depleting substances. The challenge now, still not to be underestimated, is largely one of implementation in developing countries.
The Importance of Assessments: keeping politics at arm's length
There is much that is unique about the Montreal Protocol and the way it was developed. As research findings were so vital to the decisions leading to the agreement, scientific, environmental, technical and economic assessments are stipulated in the Protocol at least every four years. These assessments, entrenched in the Protocol in a way which puts them at arm's length from political considerations, provide a basis for further decisions on ozone-depleting substances and the actions necessary on an international basis.
It is important that assessments not be beholden to special economic or political interests. This is achieved by drawing on the top subject experts, wherever they may be found, in every aspect of the issue, and an exhaustive process of peer review. This impartial approach explains why there is generally no argument over the technical data presented.
The Protocol has successfully used the consensus arrived at on science and technology through the assessment process as a powerful driver to update the Protocol and its implementation. While considerable progress has been made, communicating assessment results so that they are understood by the whole range of stakeholders remains a challenge.
Sponsored as part of the 10th Anniversary Celebrations Program by Environment Canada, with the assistance of L’université de Québec à Montréal and the Canadian Global Change Program of the Royal Society of Canada, and with the generous financial support of 3M and Nortel.
International Advisory Committee
Pieter Aucamp, South Africa
Suely Carvalho, Brazil
John Hollins, Canada
Winfried Lang, Austria
Jan van der Leun, the Netherlands
Nelson Sabogal, Colombia
Angus Fergusson, Environment Canada
Sonja Henneman, Environment Canada
Claude Lefrançois, Royal Society of Canada
Yarrow McConnell, Royal Society of Canada
Philippe Le Prestre, Université de Québec à Montréal
John Reid, Environment Canada
Hague Vaughan, Environment Canada
