1. Background
1.1 At the meeting held on 10 July 2009, the Subcommittee on Ozone
Layer Protection (Products Containing Scheduled Substances) (Import
Banning)(Amendment) Regulation 2009 (the Subcommittee) requested the
Research and Library Services Division to provide background information on
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal
Protocol). The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty adopted in 1987 to
protect the ozone layer by phasing out the consumption and production of a
number of substances responsible for ozone depletion.
1.2 Against the above background, the purpose of this information note
is to provide the Subcommittee with information on the background leading to
the adoption of the Montreal Protocol, as well as the regulatory framework
established under the treaty. The preferential treatment for developing
signatory countries and the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol will also be
discussed.
2. Prelude to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol
2.1 Above the Earth’s surface at an altitude of between 10 km and 50 km
lies the stratosphere, the region where most of the ozone molecules reside.
This stratospheric ozone layer forms a protective shield against ultraviolet
radiation enacting from the sun, which will be harmful to human health and the
environment if it reaches the Earth’s surface.
2.2 The concerns over the depletion of the ozone layer surfaced in the
early 1970s when scientists warned about a thinning of the stratospheric ozone
belt caused by ozone-depleting substances (ODS). ODS were man-made
chemicals being used extensively in industrial processes during that period.
Various research studies showed that the increased release of ODS into the
atmosphere would cause damage to the ozone layer. In 1977, the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP2) of the United Nations established
the Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer to study the issue and suggest
scientific solutions to the problem. Subsequently, UNEP initiated an effort to
negotiate an international treaty to phase out ODS, which was culminated in
the adoption of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer in
March 1985.
2.3 The Vienna Convention was a framework convention without
establishing any controls on the consumption and production of ODS. It only
called for the signatory countries to study, research, and report on various
aspects of the ozone depletion. Two months after the adoption of the Vienna
Convention, British scientists discovered destruction of ozone (the “ozone
hole”) over the Antarctic. This discovery triggered governments and the
international community to recognize the need for stronger measures to
respond to the problem of ozone depletion. After two more years of intensive
negotiations, efforts to protect the ozone layer took an important step forward
with the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on 16 September 1987. This
international treaty entered into force on 1 January 1989 and was ratified by
195 countries as at May 2009. It sets out, among other things, binding,
time-targeted and measurable commitments for the signatory countries to phase
out the consumption and production of ODS.
3. Evolution of the Montreal Protocol
3.1 The Montreal Protocol, adopted in 1987, originally identified eight
ODS as controlled substances and set out control measures to freeze and reduce
the production and consumption of these controlled substances. After more
than 20 years of development, the Montreal Protocol now covers 96 ODS in its
list of controlled substances.
3.2 The Montreal Protocol has put in place a mechanism for signatory
countries to meet at least every four years to review the control measures
prescribed under the Montreal Protocol and to introduce “amendments” and/or
“adjustments” to the treaty if necessary. Since 1989, a total of 20 Meetings
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (MOP) have been held.
Amendments and adjustments of the Montreal Protocol
3.3 According to UNEP, “amendments” are significant changes to the
Montreal Protocol, such as adding new controlled substances and new
obligations to the treaty. Parties are not bound by these changes unless and
until they ratify the relevant “amendment”. Countries that have not ratified a
certain “amendment” are considered as a non-party to the new controlled
substances or obligations introduced by that amendment. On the other hand,
“adjustments” are changes to the Montreal Protocol which affect the phase-out
schedules for existing controlled substances. “Adjustments” are automatically
binding for all countries that have ratified the Montreal Protocol, or the
relevant “amendment” that introduced the controlled substances concerned.
3.4 Over the dynamic history of the Montreal Protocol, the treaty has
been adjusted six times in 1990 (London), 1992 (Copenhagen), 1995 (Vienna),
1997 (Montreal), 1999 (Beijing) and 2007 (Montreal) respectively to accelerate
the phase-out schedules. It has also been amended four times, by the London
Amendment in 1990, the Copenhagen Amendment in 1992, the Montreal
Amendment in 1997 and the Beijing Amendment in 1999, in a move to add
new controlled substances and introduce other kinds of control measures to the
treaty.
3.5 Apart from adding new controlled substances, the 1990 London
Amendment also set out preferential treatment for developing countries under
the Montreal Protocol (defined as “Article 5 parties” in the treaty). As to be
discussed in paragraphs 5.1-5.4 below, these Article 5 parties are permitted,
among other things, to delay implementing the control measures by up to
10 years, as compared with non-Article 5 parties (mainly developed countries).
4. Control measures under the Montreal Protocol
4.1 The core of the Montreal Protocol is the control measures the treaty
requires its signatories to impose on the production and consumption of ODS.
The original Montreal Protocol provided for controls on eight chemical
substances – five CFCs and three halons. The subsequent MOPs convened in
London, Copenhagen, Vienna, Montreal and Beijing have each brought
forward the phase-out schedules for existing ODS and broadened the coverage
of controlled substances to other ODS. The control measures introduced at
these MOPs for consumption and production of ODS by Article 5 and
non-Article 5 parties are detailed in Appendices I and II respectively.
4.2 Articles 2A to 2I of the Montreal Protocol stipulate the control
measures governing the consumption and production of controlled substances
listed in Annexes A, B, C and E to the Montreal Protocol. These control
measures are generally characterized by:
(a) initial freeze
on consumption/production – generally tied to an
historic consumption/production level;
(b) 100% phase-out by a specified date; and
(c) interim targets (i.e. stepped reductions).
5. Preferential treatment for developing signatories
5.1 Compared with developed countries, developing countries operating
under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol are entitled to a longer phase-out
period for most of controlled substances listed in Annexes A, B, C and E. In
particular, they could delay by 10 years the implementation of the control
measures agreed at the MOP held in London in 1990. Against this, Article 5
parties could phase out the consumption and production of the relevant
controlled substances in Annexes A and B (except for methyl chloroform) by
2010, whereas the then corresponding phase-out date for non-Article 5 parties
was 2000 (see the third column of Appendix I for Article 5 parties and
Appendix II for non-Article 5 parties respectively).
5.2 The preferential treatment granted for Article 5 parties is to address
the concerns that developing countries still use most ODS and that they usually
do not have easy access to alternative technologies, know-how and capital
investment for complying with the control measures prescribed under the
Montreal Protocol. The grace period is intended to give Article 5 parties
sufficient time to receive the technical and policy support they need for a
smooth transition to non-ODS technologies.
5.3 Under the Montreal Protocol, financial and technical assistance are
provided to Article 5 parties to facilitate their compliance with the control
measures set out in the treaty. Such an arrangement also serves as an
incentive to encourage developing countries to accede to the Montreal Protocol.
As to financial assistance, Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol prescribes for the
establishment of a “Financial Mechanism” to facilitate the transfer of ODS
substitutes and related technology to Article 5 parties. The mechanism
includes the Multilateral Fund as well as other means of multilateral, regional
and bilateral co-operation. The Multilateral Fund finances the “agreed
incremental costs” incurred by Article 5 parties in phasing out their
consumption and production of ODS. Since its commencement in 1991, the
Multilateral Fund has undergone replenishment every three years with
contributions by non-Article 5 parties.
5.4 Article 10A of the Montreal Protocol further provides for the transfer
of technology to Article 5 parties. In particular, all parties to the Montreal
Protocol shall take “every practicable step” to ensure that “the best available,
environmentally safe substitutes and related technologies are expeditiously
transferred” to Article 5 parties “under fair and most favorable conditions”.
6. Trade measures under the Montreal Protocol
6.1 Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol prohibits trade in ODS between
parties and non-parties to the treaty. According to UNEP, a non-party (with
regard to a particular ODS) is any signatory country whose government has not
ratified, accepted, approved or accessed the Montreal Protocol or one or more
of its specific amendments that have introduced a particular ODS as a
controlled substance. The situation with respect to ratification as at May 2009
was as follows: 195 of 196 countries had ratified the Montreal Protocol,
192 the London Amendment, 189 the Copenhagen Amendment, 175 the
Montreal Amendment and 156 the Beijing Amendment.
6.2 As stipulated under Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol, the “control
of trade with non-parties” covers restrictions on:
(a) imports and exports of the controlled substances listed in
Annexes A, B, C and E;
(b) the products containing controlled substances; and
(c) trade in ODS technology and equipment.
The above trade restrictions serve to safeguard that the industries of the
signatory countries would not be tempted to circumvent their obligations by
importing controlled substances from non-parties, or to escape the phase-out
schedules by migrating production to non-parties and then re-exporting the
controlled substances for local consumption. The prohibitive trade measures
also aim at maximizing participation in the Montreal Protocol, by denying
non-parties supplies of the controlled substances (and/or the products
containing them). However, the trade bans are not applicable to a non-party
which demonstrates, and the parties to the Montreal Protocol agree, that it is in
full compliance with the treaty’s control measures.
Products containing controlled substances
6.3 Article 4 also prohibits the imports from non-parties of products
containing Annex A substances. These products are listed in Annex D to the
Montreal Protocol, which are comprised of:
(a) automobile and truck air-conditioning units;
(b) domestic and commercial refrigeration and air conditioning/heat
pump equipment (such as refrigerators, freezers, dehumidifiers,
water coolers, ice machines and air-conditioning and heat pump units);
(c) aerosol products, except medical aerosols;
(d) portable fire extinguishers;
(e) insulation boards, panels and pipe covers; and
(f) pre-polymers.
Annex D, effective in May 1993, is not applicable to a non-party that is in
compliance with the Montreal Protocol’s control schedules.
Trade in ODS technology and equipment
6.4 Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol further requires signatory
countries to undertake the fullest practical extent to discourage the exports of
technology to any non-parties for producing and using the controlled
substances listed in Annexes A, B, C and E. They are also required to refrain
from providing new subsidies, aid, credits, guarantees or insurance
programs for exports to non-parties of products, equipment, plants or
technology that would facilitate the production of controlled substances.
Exceptions are allowed for products, equipment, plants, or technology that
improve the containment, recovery, recycling or destruction of controlled
substances, promote the development of alternative substances, or otherwise
contribute to the reduction of emission of controlled substances.
7. Effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol
7.1 Due to its widespread adoption and implementation, the Montreal
Protocol has been hailed as an example of exceptional international
co-operation, with former Secretary General Kofi Annan quoted as saying it is
“perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date”. By
2006, 96% of all ODS had been phased out globally and the total consumption
of CFCs worldwide had fallen to 3.2% of the 1986 level.
7.2 Furthermore, the most recent report from the UNEP Scientific
Assessment Panel indicates that the level of ODS in the atmosphere peaked in
the late 1990s. Assuming continuing compliance with the Montreal Protocol,
it is estimated that the global ozone level will recover to the pre-1980s level
around 2050. The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to disappear during
2065-2075. Without the Montreal Protocol, it is calculated that the total
quantity of ODS in the atmosphere would, by 2050, be five times today’s level.
