SAVING A PLANET ONE
CONVENTION AT A TIME
Jacob
International Law (POLI-233-A)
November 23, 2012
Abstract
In 1985 the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer was held in response to
recent discoveries and research of the negative impact that Chlorofluorocarbon’s (CFC) have on
the ozone. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was created and ratified by 46 countries to limit and
phase-out the use of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Over the 25 year life span of the
Montreal Protocol unparalleled success has been made internationally with respects to effective
law practices as well as effectively phasing out over 98% of the ODS. The Montreal Protocol has
been one of the fastest growing international treaties to gain global attention as well as support
and in fact, the Montreal Protocol is the first and only international treaty to ever be universally
ratified. The Montreal Protocol can be seen as one of the most monumentally successful treaties.
2
In the past several decades, a daunting realization has come to the forefront of all
environmental issues; the ozone is in a state of depletion. The 1985 Vienna Convention on the
Protection of the Ozone Layer created the Montreal Protocol, which to date has been the most
effective international treaty in gaining global approval and has been extremely effective in
phasing out and limiting negative substances that degrade the ozone layer and subsequently the
entire global environment. Through this convention many laws have been implemented
internationally through the ratification of four focal amendments, the London Amendment,
Copenhagen Amendment, Montreal Amendment and the Beijing Amendment.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is an international
legal agreement that has been responsible for the phasing out of almost all of the substances that
are recognized to negatively affect the ozone layer. The Executive Director of the United Nations
Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, claimed in the Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer that as of 2012, over 98% of the substances that had
been depleting the ozone have been phased out. In regards to this paper and the works of the
Montreal Protocol, the depletion of the ozone particularly is referencing the Stratosphere, which
has a high concentration of Oxygen3 particles. The Stratosphere effectively helps limit the UVRays and radiation that enters the earth’s atmosphere from the sun. The repercussions for the
degradation of the ozone and the increase in the ozone hole above the Antarctic, is a notable
increase in such areas of concern as skin cancer, damage the orbital lobes and an increase in
other exposures that negatively affect vegetation. (Ozone Depletion Law & Legal Definition
2012) Another perceived implication is that this exposure to the suns radiation could ultimately
play a part in the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and the alteration of weather patterns.
3
The recognition of the negative impacts on the ozone layer are accredited to two
Chemists by the name of Frank Rowland and Mario Molina whom discovered the depletion of
the ozone during their studies of at UCI (University of California, Irvine) in 1973. In 1974 with
the completion of their paper on the affects of Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) on the earth’s
atmosphere, the two Chemists presented their findings at a government hearing. This led to the
National Academy of Sciences acknowledging the “ozone depletion hypothesis” and an increase
nationally and globally in the attention to this issue as well as funding from several incredibly
large agencies and companies including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
the Environmental Protection Agency for further research on the implications of different
chemicals and substances on the ozone layer. (Halocarbons Effects on Stratospheric Ozone 1976,
v-vii) This event led to the National Academy of Sciences acknowledging the “ozone depletion
hypothesis”, an increase in awareness on this issue both nationally and globally, and funding
from several large agencies and companies like National Aeronautics, Space Administration and
the Environmental Protection Agency for further research on the implications of different
chemicals and substances on the ozone layer.
In 1978 a ban was placed on the use of Chlorofluorocarbon’s in aerosol spray cans in the
United States, which ultimately kicked off the beginning of the legal implication in protecting
the ozone layer. This ban along with other research would later lead to the agreement that
international cooperation was needed to tackle such a large issue. (Ozone Layer Protection –
Science 2010) Other chemicals such as Freon-12 (CCl2F2) would also later be banned due to the
decomposition of the chemical by high-energy light creating chlorine, which also negatively
4
affects the ozone layer. (Chemical Principles 2009, 759-761) With a growing concern for the
degradation of the ozone as well as the finding of the hole in the ozone, the 1985 Vienna
Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer took place. “In September 1987,
representatives of just forty-six countries gathered in Montreal to agree the text of the first
international agreement to apply limits to the production and consumption of the main chemicals
causing the destruction of the Earth’s protective ozone layer.” (Handbook for the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 2012, xi)
The Montreal Protocol legally binds all countries that ratified the treaty to limit and phase
out the use of the chemicals that were previously discussed, as well as limit any future chemicals
or substances that could harm the environment, particularly the ozone. In the preamble to the
Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, it states,
“Determined to protect the ozone layer by taking precautionary measures to control equitably
total global emissions of substances that deplete it, with the ultimate objective of their
elimination on the basis of developments in scientific knowledge, taking into account technical
and economic considerations and bearing in mind the developmental needs of developing
countries.” This quote is addressed to any reader of the handbook as well as the parties that ratify
the Montreal Protocol, which has now amounted to 197 countries and is the first treaty in the
history of the United Nations to ever be universally ratified. The end of this quote speaks to the
interest of “developing countries,” and is referencing an interesting legal aspect of the Montreal
Protocol worth mentioning, which is the “adjustment provision.” This provision allows for the
adjustment of the Protocol in response to technological advances that help the reduction of the
chemicals in the Protocol. These adjustments made by any country of the treaty are then legally
5
binding to all of the countries that have ratified the Montreal Protocol. These adjustments have
only been made five times in the 25 years of the Montreal Protocols existence. (United Nations
Environment Programme Secretariat 2011)
Over the past 25 years there have been four amendments made to the Montreal Protocol,
which does not include “adjustments.” The original Montreal Protocol was formally established
and implemented in 1987, which effectively put a time limit on the developed countries to begin
phasing out the use of CFC’s, which was 1993. This Montreal Protocol also originally called for
the developed countries that had ratified the treaty to reduce the use of CFC’s by 50% within 5
years of the time that they initially began phasing out the CFC’s. The first amendment came in
1990 and is known as the London Amendment. This amendment increased the span of the ozonedepleting substances (ODS) to include the original CFC’s but also halons, carbon tetrachloride
and methyl chloroform. The first three of the ozone-depleting substances were to have ultimate
and complete phase-out being completed by 2000 and 2010 for developed and developing
countries respectively and the fourth, methyl chloroform, to be phased out by the years 2005 and
2015 respectively in regards to developed and developing countries. Two years later the
Copenhagen Amendment of 1992 took place which created a new dead line for the phase-out of
the ozone-depleting substances. The new phase-out deadline was to be 1996 for developed
countries and put a cap on the consumption of methyl bromide to the previous years level
measurements. The Montreal Amendment of 1997 created a phase-out deadline for HCFCS
within the developing countries and revisited the cap that had been set on methyl bromide in the
Copenhagen Amendment and now created a deadline for the phase-out of this chemical as well.
The last amendment made to the Montreal Protocol to date, is the 1999 Beijing Amendment
6
which “included tightened controls on the production and trade of HCFCs. Bromochloromethane
was also added to the list of controlled substances with phase-out targeted for 2004.” (Ozone
Layer Protection- Science 2010)
Refer to Table 1.
Ultimately the effectiveness of any international treaty weighs solely on the cooperation
of the nation states at hand to ratify the treaty itself. Originally 46 different countries heard the
Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the discussions of the depleting
ozone layer. The effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol that came out of the Vienna Convention
spread rapidly and to this day has never been matched in effectiveness. The original Protocol did
not initially plan for the complete banning of all of the ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and
ultimately had only put a dent in the idea of protecting or reversing the degrading ozone layer.
The countries involved in the original Protocol can be accredited for the extremely efficient
negotiations that led to the further amendments that have previously been discussed. These
amendments ultimately put more restraints on the countries that had ratified the Protocol and
continued to do so through out all of the four amendments. As the Protocol gained strength in the
effectiveness in reducing the production and consumption of CFC’s and other ozone-depleting
substances, more and more countries joined the force to save the ozone layer ultimately leading
to monumental gains in the respective fields.
Refer to Table 2.
7
Worth noting at this point is that the number of countries that have ratified the
amendments decreases over time and there is a margin of time before countries are able to ratify
the newer amendments, with the original Montreal Protocol, London Amendment and the
Copenhagen Amendments being the only three that have been ratified by all 197 countries.
(United Nations Environment Programme Secretariat 2011) The decrease in ratifications could
be due to the limitations that the two newer amendments have created in regards to the use,
whether it is consumption or production, of ozone-depleting substances. Serious limitations to
banning such a wide variety of substances obviously exist, especially for lesser-developed
countries when a substance used for agriculture is in question.
Anytime there is a large movement for the banning of substances that were previously
used in modern societies for the benefit of the global environment, the reaction emotionally will
obviously be unanimously in support of movement to better life as a whole. However great the
idea at hand is, there is still an issue with finding new inventions to replace the older and now
banned materials or substances. Publically the Montreal Protocol was seen as a huge success
within the developed world, but this doesn’t solve the problem of finding and alternative for the
majority of the populations of the world that are still only developing countries. For example as
George Maxwell explained in 2007 in a very brief response to an online question/ answer based
website. Liquefied Petroleum gas (LPG) and Dimethyl ether (DME) are the common
replacements for CFC’s in aerosol cans. Liquefied Petroleum gas is used as a water-based
material, which is extremely inexpensive but it doesn’t break down materials as well as Dimethyl
ethers. Dimethyl ethers in relation to CFC’s or LPG’s, is extremely expensive and has a higher
toxicity. Commonly the two are mixed for aerosol cans today, which effectively lessen the price
8
of the aerosol while creating a substance that is a better dissolvent. The problem here though, is
that these chemicals are still more expensive to create than the original CFC’s and are extremely
expensive to research. (Maxwell 2007) Another example of an ozone depletion substance that is
commonly used is methyl bromide, a substance that is used as a pesticide and is responsible for
roughly 10% of the ODS consumption. (Horwitz 2012, 12) This is particularly a strong example
due to the financial burden that farmers can commonly find themselves in when common
pesticides or chemicals become banned.
Although this phase-out of CFC’s as been effectively implemented almost globally, there
are still areas of the world that can not afford to purchase the more expensive chemicals and are
completely reliant on developed countries research and production as well as distribution of such
goods. As the Montreal Protocol continues to be ratified, more and more ozone-depleting
substances are added to the lists of substances that are to be phased-out of use and production.
This creates an issue for lesser developed countries, developing countries or even members of
developed countries, (as explained previously with the farmer example) which is, do they follow
the global leaders in the pursuit to save the environment or do they solely look out for their best
interest fiscally and use the cheaper and more dangerous substances that may now only be
accessible through the black market.
Part of the Montreal Protocol that has been able to help with the various problems of
these sorts is the Multilateral Fund that came into existence in 1991. In the foreword of the
Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Executive
Director remarks, “Since its inception in 1991, the Multilateral Fund has approved activities,
9
including industrial conversion, technical assistance, training and capacity-building, worth over
US $2.9 billion.” This is an extremely effective measure that greatly strengthens the efficiency of
the Montreal Protocol globally. In the 19th meeting the Multilateral Fund was addressed in a
manner asking for a complete report that would allow the for the review of the effectiveness and
necessity for reform to this particular part of the Montreal Protocol. The section acknowledged
on multiple occasions that all members of the Protocol needed to be considered. In one of the
subsections of this decision the recognition and complete understanding of the fiscal effects can
be seen, “(h) The impact that the international market, ozone-depleting substance control
measures and country phase-out activities are likely to have on the supply of and demand for
ozone-depleting substances, the corresponding effects on the price of ozone-depleting substances
and the resulting incremental costs of investment projects during the period under review;”
(Decisions of the 19th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 2011)
The thorough and elaborate mindfulness of other countries needs financially, socially,
and economically that can be seen in the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone
Layer is ultimately what has lead to the extreme level of effectiveness of this convention that has
been seen in the past 25 years of Montreal Protocols existence. The Montreal Protocol as a legal
document has been extremely effective in it’s ability to be universally appealing and today
universally accepted. On the other side of this seemingly perfect Protocol though is a side that is
only recently being understood or acknowledged for the negative implications. As Horwitz
explains in Vital Ozone Graphics, there are extremely serious implications that have come about
from the treaty’s successful phase out of CFCs. He states, “In the initial phase of the treaty’s
implementation, shifting to chemicals with a lower ozone destruction potential was actively
10
encouraged and even financially supported, because they allowed a faster phase out of CFCs.
The powerful warming potential of these new substances was not a major issue at the time.” This
aspect was one of the few areas that went unseen by the founding companies of the treaty
unfortunately the problem doesn’t stop there though, “If a “business as usual” approach is taken,
the HCFC phase-out could lead to a surge in the use of HFCs, a class of greenhouse gases with a
global warming potential thousands of times stronger than CO2.” (Horwitz 2012, 10) The
implications of one positive move in relation to environmental progress have now potentially
threatened another aspect to a severity that has never been seen. In the same section of Vital
Ozone Graphics, a study is referenced claims of these HFC emissions being solely responsible
for anywhere from 10-20% of global warming in 2050, which is also ironically the year that the
ozone had been predicted to be completely repaired from the Montreal Protocols successes.
Although there are recent discoveries in these areas that are raising concern for the
scientists and environmentalist that are working on the phasing out process or the individuals that
implemented the plan originally, the effectiveness of The Montreal Protocol as a legal system
can not be questioned. The negative consequences of the banning of ozone-depleting substances
are not currently affecting the environment and have been recognized far enough in advance, that
scientists and business owners have time to effectively implement other plans for the future. This
same thing cannot be said at the time of the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone
Layer. In 1985 when the original 46 countries representatives meet in Vienna to discuss the
affects of the CFCs on the ozone, no previous work or precedent had been laid before them to
work with. With these new issues arising, there is strong physical documentation in the Montreal
11
Protocol, which has been of the utmost success for the past 25 years that can be used in
reformation and conservation of the environment.
With much of the environments future being unclear at the present time, a few very clear
and strong conclusions can be made. For future successes to be even close to as effective as the
Montreal Protocol has been, universal government cooperation as well as alignment of business
alliances with environmental standards will have to be made. In 1988 the largest CFC producing
company responded to the Montreal Protocol before it was even implemented, “In March 1988,
DuPont, the world’s largest CFC producer, with 25 percent of the market share, made a startling
announcement: it would stop manufacturing CFCs. The decision had profound repercussions in
the chemical and CFC-producing industry.” (Horwitz 2012, 28) With cooperation from
companies like DuPont, whom commonly attract the most negative environmental reputations,
and strong leadership and innovation from countries, as seen in the Montreal Protocol of 1987,
the future can absolutely progress in environmental efficiency. Ultimately unparalleled success
has been seen with the laws that have been implemented in regards to the depletion of the ozone
over the past 25 years, making the Montreal Protocol one of the most effective and powerful
international laws ever created.
12
13
Bibliography
"Halocarbons Effects on Stratospheric Ozone." National Academy of Sciences. (1976): v-vii.
http://books.google.com/books?.
"Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer." United
Nations Environment Programme. 9th Edition (2012).
http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Handbook/MP-Handbook-2012.pdf (accessed
November 22, 2012).
Horwitz, Paul. Vital Ozone Graphics. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, 2012.
http://ozone.unep.org/Events/25_anniversary/Vital-Ozone-Graphics-3.pdf (accessed
November 22, 2012).
Maxwell, George. All Experts, "Chemicals/ Propellants." Last modified 2007. Accessed
November 22, 2012. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Chemicals-2460/Propellants.htm.
"Ozone Depletion Law & Legal Definition." USLegal Last modified 2012. Accessed
November 22, 2012. http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/ozone-depletion/.
United Nations Environment Programme Secretariat, "Decisions of the 19th Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol." Last modified 2011. Accessed November 22, 2012.
14
http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/Treaties/decisions_text.php?meet_type_id=1&m_id=1
1&dec_order=10.
United Nations Environment Programme Secretariat, "The Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer." Last modified 2011. Accessed November 22, 2012.
http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Ozone Layer Protection - Science." Last modified
2010. Accessed November 22, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/q_a.html.
Welch, Charles. The Ozone Hole Inc., "The Ozone Hole." Last modified 2011. Accessed
November 22, 2012. http://www.theozonehole.com/montreal.htm.
Zumdahl, Steven. 2009. Chemical Principles. Sixth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2009. 759-761.
15
Table 1. (The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer)
16
Table 2. (Welch 2011)
17