Microsoft word - ozone backgrounder - nov 2005 update - mw & ms.doc

BACKGROUNDER
Basic Facts and Data on the Science and Politics of Ozone Protection
1. The Ozone Layer
Ozone molecules (O3) consist of three oxygen atoms. This poisonous gas is extremely rare in the
atmosphere, representing just three out of every 10 million molecules. Ninety per cent of ozone exists in the
upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, between 10 and 50 km (6-30 miles) above the earth. Ozone at
ground-level, at the bottom of the troposphere, is a harmful pollutant resulting from automobile exhausts and
other sources.
80
MESOSPHERE
60
STRATOSPHERE
40
TROPOSPHERE
20
km
0
50
100
150
Figure 1 - Ozone Distribution in the Atmosphere
The ozone layer absorbs most of the harmful ultraviolet-B radiation from the sun. It also completely
screens out lethal UV-C radiation. The ozone shield is thus essential to life as we know it. Depleting the
ozone layer allows more UV-B to reach the earth. More UV-B means more melanoma and non-melanoma
skin cancers, more eye cataracts, weakened immune systems, reduced plant yields, damage to ocean
eco-systems and reduced fishing yields, adverse effects on animals, and more damage to plastics.
Scientific concern started in 1970 when Prof. Paul Crutzen pointed out the possibility that nitrogen oxides
from fertilizers and supersonic aircraft might deplete the ozone layer. In 1974, Professors F. Sherwood
Rowland and Mario J. Molina recognized that when CFCs finally break apart in the atmosphere and release
chlorine atoms they cause ozone depletion. Bromine atoms released by halons have the same effect. The
three scientists received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995 for their pioneering work.
The ozone layer over the Antarctic has steadily weakened since measurements started in the early
1980s. The problem is worst over this part of the globe due to the extremely cold atmosphere and the
presence of polar stratospheric clouds. The land area under the ozone-depleted atmosphere increased steadily
to more than 20 million sq km in the early 1990s and has varied between 20 and 29 million sq. km since
then. The area of the ozone hole reached a record 29 million sq. kilometers on 12 September 2000; it
extended to 27 million sq. km. in September 2003 and 24 million sq. km in 2004. While no hole has
appeared elsewhere, the Arctic spring has seen the ozone layer over the North Pole thin by up to 30%, while
the depletion over Europe and other high latitudes has varied between 5% and 30%.
Figure 2 - Measurements of Ozone and Reactive Chlorine from a Flight Into the Antarctic Ozone Hole, 1987
2. Adopting and Ratifying the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and
Amendments to the Protocol
The issue of ozone depletion was first discussed by the Governing Council of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1976. A meeting of experts on the ozone layer was convened in
1977, after which UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) set up the Coordinating
Committee of the Ozone Layer (CCOL) to periodically assess ozone depletion. Intergovernmental
negotiations for an international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting substances started in 1981 and
concluded with the adoption of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer in March 1985.
The 1985 Vienna Convention encourages intergovernmental cooperation on research, systematic
observation of the ozone layer, monitoring of CFC production and the exchange of information. The
Convention commits its Parties to take general measures to protect human health and the environment
against human activities that modify the ozone layer. The Vienna Convention is a framework agreement and
does not contain legally binding controls or targets.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was adopted in September 1987.
Following the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in late 1985, governments recognized the need for
stronger measures to reduce the production and consumption of a number of CFCs (CFC-11, 12, 113, 114,
and 115) and several Halons (1211, 1301, 2402). The Protocol was designed so that the phase-out schedules
could be revised on the basis of periodic scientific and technological assessments. Following such
assessments, the Protocol was adjusted to accelerate the phase-out schedules in London in 1990, Copenhagen
in 1992, Vienna in 1995, Montreal in 1997, and Beijing in 1999. It has also been amended to introduce other
kinds of control measures and to add new controlled substances to the list; the 1990 London Amendment
included additional CFCs (CFC-13, 111, 112, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217) and two solvents (carbon
tetrachloride and methyl chloroform), while the 1992 Copenhagen Amendment added methyl bromide,
HBFCs and HCFCs. The Montreal Amendment of 1997 finalized the schedules for phasing out methyl
bromide. The Beijing Amendment of 1999 included Bromochloromethane for immediate phase out; it also
introduced production controls on HCFCs as well as controls on trade with non-Parties.
Governments are not legally bound until they ratify the Protocol as well as the Amendments.
Unfortunately, while most governments have ratified the Protocol, ratification of the amendments and their
stronger control measures lag behind. As of 21 November 2005, the Ozone Agreements had been ratified by
countries as depicted in the figure 3 chart:
Ozone Protocol and Amendments Ratification Status
(Information sent to the Ozone Secretariat by the Depositary, UN Office of Legal Affairs, 21 November 2005) Figure 3 - Ratification Status of the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments.
3. The Chemicals And Their Phase-Out Schedules
Ninety-six (96) chemicals are presently controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including:
• Halo-carbons, notably chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Halons. CFCs were discovered in 1928 and
were considered wonder gases because they are long-lived, non-toxic, non-corrosive, and non-flammable. They are also versatile and from the 1960s were increasingly used in refrigerators, air conditioners, spray cans, solvents, foams, and other applications. CFC-11 remains in the atmosphere for 50 years, CFC-12 for 102 years, and CFC-115 for 1,700. Halon 1301 is used primarily in fire extinguishers and has an atmospheric lifetime of 65 years. • Carbon tetrachloride is used as a solvent and takes about 42 years to break down in the atmosphere.
• Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane) is also used as a solvent and takes about 5.4 years to break
• Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) are not widely used, but they have been included under the
• Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) were developed as the first major replacement for CFCs. While
much less destructive than CFCs, HCFCs also contribute to ozone depletion. They have an atmospheric lifetime of about 1.4 to 19.5 years. • Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is used as a fumigant for high-value crops, pest control, and quarantine
treatment of agricultural commodities awaiting export. Total world annual consumption for controlled uses (not including uses for quarantine and pre-shipment) was about 30,000 tonnes in 2004. It takes about 0.7 years to break down. • Bromochloromethane (BCM), a new ozone-depleting substance that some companies sought to
introduce into the market in 1998, has been targeted by the 1999 Amendment for immediate phase-out to prevent its use. • The Parties are considering measures to prevent the marketing of new ozone-depleting substances not so The phase-out schedules for developed countries are as follows:
¾ Phase out Halons by 1994; ¾ Phase out CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and HBFCs by 1996; ¾ Reduce methyl bromide by 25% by 1999, 50% by 2001, 70% by 2003, and phase out by 2005; ¾ Reduce HCFCs by 35% by 2004, 65% by 2010, 90% by 2015, and 99.5% by 2020, with 0.5% permitted for maintenance purposes only until 2030. ¾ Phase out HBFCs by 1996 and phase out BCM immediately. Developing countries have a grace period before they must start their phase-out schedules. This reflects
the recognition that developed countries are responsible for the bulk of total emissions into the atmosphere
and that they have more financial and technological resources for adopting replacements. The developing
country schedules are as follows:
¾ Phase out HBFCs by 1996 and phase out BCM immediately; ¾ Freeze CFCs, Halons and carbon tetrachloride at average 1995-97 levels by 1 July 1999, reduce by 50% by 2005, 85% by 2007, and phase out completely by 2010; ¾ Freeze methyl chloroform by 2003 at average 1998-2000 levels, reduce by 30% by 2005 and 70% by ¾ Freeze methyl bromide by 2002 at average 1995-98 levels, reduce by 20% by 2005, and phase out by ¾ Freeze HCFCs by 2016 at 2015 levels and phase out by 2040. The phase-out schedules cover both the production and the consumption of the target substances.
However, even after phase out both developed and developing countries are permitted to produce limited
quantities in order to meet the essential uses for which no alternatives have yet been identified, e.g. the use of
CFCs in metered dose inhalers for asthma. Production is defined as total production minus amounts
destroyed or used as chemical feedstock. Consumption is defined as production plus imports minus exports.
Trade in recycled and used chemicals is not included in the calculation of consumption in order to encourage
recovery, reclamation and recycling.
4. What Have Been The Results So Far?
Without the Protocol, by the year 2050 ozone depletion would have risen to at least 50% in the
northern hemisphere's mid latitudes and 70% in the southern mid latitudes, about 10 times worse than
current levels. The result would have been a doubling of UV-B radiation reaching the earth in the northern
mid latitudes and a quadrupling in the south. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere
would have been five times greater. The implications of this would have been horrendous: 19 million more
cases of non-melanoma cancer, 1.5 million cases of melanoma cancer, and 130 million more cases of eye
cataracts.
Figure 4.1 - Projection of what would have happened without the Protocol - Ozone Losses
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Figure 4.2 - Projections: Annual Deaths from Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Averted due to
the Montreal Protocol
In 1986 the total consumption of CFCs world-wide was about 1.1 million ODP tonnes; by 2004 this
had come down to about 70,000 tonnes. (The ODP, or ozone-depleting potential, of a gas is based on
comparing its impact on the ozone layer to that of CFC-11.) It has been calculated that without the Montreal
Protocol global consumption would have reached about 3 million tonnes in the year 2010 and 8 million
tonnes in 2060, resulting in a 50% depletion of the ozone layer by 2035. The bulk of the 1986 total, or about
0.9 million ODP tonnes, was consumed in developed countries, but this figure had declined to about 2,000
tonnes annually in the years 2003 and 2004, including consumption for exemptions approved by the Parties.
By 2004, the developing countries had reduced their CFC consumption by about 60% from their maximum
consumption in the mid-1990s.
Consumption of CFCs
Production of CFCs
(As Reported to the Ozone Secretariat, UNEP) (As Reported to the Ozone Secretariat, UNEP) ODP Tonnes
ODP Tonnes
Figure 5 - Worldwide Production and Consumption of CFCs
Scientists predict that ozone depletion will reach its worst point during the next few years and then
gradually reverse until the ozone layer returns to normal around 2050, assuming that the Montreal
Protocol is fully implemented. The ozone layer is currently in its most vulnerable state. Despite declining
CFC emissions, stratospheric concentrations are still increasing (although they are declining in the lower
atmosphere) because long-lived CFCs emitted in earlier years continue to rise to the stratosphere. The
atmospheric abundance of certain CFCs (notably CFC-11 and CFC-113), carbon tetrachloride, and methyl
chloroform is declining. The abundance of most of the halons continues to increase. Concentrations of
HCFCs and HFCs (see below) are, of course, increasing, since they are used as substitutes for the CFCs that
are being phased out.
The success of ozone protection has been possible because science and industry have been able to
develop and commercialize alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals. Developed countries ended the use
of CFCs faster and with less cost than was originally anticipated. Substitutes have proved particularly
important in electronics. The foam-blowing sector has made use of water, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons,
as well as HCFCs. The refrigeration and air-conditioning sector has largely used HCFCs as alternatives, but
new equipment is increasingly using replacements with zero ozone-depleting potential, including
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), ammonia, and hydrocarbons.
HFCs have a high global warming potential and have been included in the basket of greenhouse gases
controlled by the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention on Climate Change. Countries are now trying to
minimise their emissions of HFCs.
Consumers are recycling existing Halons to gain time for developing substitutes for fire fighting. Other
extinguishing agents such as carbon dioxide, water, foam, and dry powder are now widely used. Alternative
approaches, such as good fire prevention practices, use of fire-resistant materials, and appropriate designs for
buildings have significantly reduced the need for Halon systems, and total phase-out was achieved smoothly
by 1994.
Countries are recovering and recycling CFCs from obsolete equipment and using it for maintenance of
existing equipment.
Industrialized countries are concentrating their phase-out efforts on HCFCs and methyl bromide.
They are trying to ensure that HCFCs are used only as direct replacements where other more
environmentally suitable alternatives are not available. HCFCs were critical for meeting the early CFC
phase-out goals but are generally considered undesirable for most new equipment because they do have some
ozone-depleting potential and ozone-safe alternatives are available for most applications.
5. A summary of the 2002 findings of the Assessment Panels
The lastest assessment reports prepared by the Montreal Protocol Assessment Panels were completed in 2002. The significant progress that has been made since this time by researchers will be reflected in the next major assessments, which are currently being prepared for 2007. Science:
• The Montreal Protocol is working. However, even if all governments fully comply with the Montreal
Protocol, the ozone layer will remain particularly vulnerable during the next decade or so. • The total combined effective abundance of ozone-depleting compounds in the lower atmosphere continues to decline slowly from the 1992-1994 peak. Total chlorine is declining, while bromine from industrial halons is still increasing, albeit at a slower rate than before. The abundances of HCFCs in the lower atmosphere are increasing. • Observations in the stratosphere indicate that the total chlorine abundance is at or near its peak, while bromine abundances are probably still increasing. • Springtime Antarctic ozone depletion due to halogens has been significant. In some recent cold Arctic winters during the last decade, maximum total column ozone losses due to halogens have reached 30%. Ozone remains depleted in the mid latitudes of both hemispheres. • The global ozone layer recovery has been linked mainly to decreasing chlorine and bromine loading. A return to pre-1980 total column ozone amounts in the Antarctic is expected by the middle of this century. Although Arctic ozone depletion is difficult to predict, a future Arctic polar ozone hole similar to that of the Antarctic appears unlikely. • The impact of very short-lived organic chlorine-, bromine-, and iodine-containing gases on stratospheric ozone can be significant if their emissions are large. • Other factors such as climate change and changes in atmospheric transport are likely to influence the recovery of the ozone layer. New research has begun to explore the coupling between climate change and the recovery of the ozone layer. Environmental Effects:
• New studies continue to confirm the adverse effects of UV-B radiation on the eyes, skin, and immune
system, including cortical cataract and skin cancer. • Phasing out the ozone-depleting chemical methyl bromide may lead to increased use of other pesticides, which result in additional health risks. • Interactions between global climate change and ozone depletion are likely to influence the risk of adverse effects of UV-B radiation on health. • Interaction of ultraviolet radiation with other global climate change factors may affect many ecosystem processes such as plant biomass production, plant consumption by herbivores including insects, disease incidence of plants and animals, and changes in species abundance and composition. • Recent results continue to confirm the general consensus that solar UV negatively affects aquatic organisms (zooplankton, as well as larval stages of primary and secondary consumers). • In addition to increasing solar UV-B radiation, aquatic ecosystems are confronted with other environmental stress factors including increased nutrient input, pollution, acidification and global climate change. • Global warming and enhanced UV-B radiation interact to affect a range of biogeochemical processes including microbial activity, nutrient cycling, and greenhouse gas emissions from soils. • Interactions between ozone depletion and climate change will have an impact on tropospheric hydroxyl (OH) radical concentration, the "cleaning" agent of the troposphere. • Climate change is likely to modify the rates of UV-induced degradation of natural and synthetic Technology and Economics:
• The remaining 7,000 ODP tonnes of CFCs used annually in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for asthma
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be phased out. The timing is difficult to predict, but it depends on the availability of affordable alternatives and the adoption and effectiveness of transition strategies by Parties. • In the last four years there has been a substantial phase-out of CFCs in non-MDI aerosols, and a complete phase-out for non-MDI aerosols is achievable. There are difficulties including the availability of hydrocarbon aerosol propellants, the conversion of small CFC users, and also the conversion of non-MDI pharmaceutical aerosols. • Most miscellaneous uses have been phased out, while some laboratory uses still remain under a global • The use of CFCs in foams has been reduced by over 90% since its peak in 1988, and HCFC use is also in decline from its peak in 2000. The phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in the foam sector has forced the industry to innovate faster than ever before. The first transition technology led to the introduction of substances such as HCFCs as well as to the increasing use of hydrocarbons and other ozone-safe chemicals. Attention is now focusing on emerging HFC-based technologies as well as on the further optimization and use of hydrocarbon and CO2 technologies. • Halon fire extinguishants are no longer necessary in virtually all new installations, with the possible exceptions of commercial aircraft and combat vehicles. The very high cost of replacing many existing halon systems with substitutesor other alternative fire-protection measures continues to be a major impediment to eliminating the continued use of halons. • The production of methyl bromide for controlled uses was reported to be about 62,000 metric tonnes in 1998; it was reduced to at least 49,000 tonnes in 1999 and at least 28,400 tonnes in 2002. The decline in the total global consumption of methyl bromide is attributed largely to its reduced use for soil fumigation. • With two exceptions (control of ginseng-root rot and the stabilization of high-moisture fresh dates), tcompleted demonstration projects have identified one or more alternatives for controlling targeted pests and diseases that are comparable to methyl bromide in their effectiveness. • In the last decade, the refrigeration, air conditioning and heat-pump industries have made tremendous technical progress in phasing out CFCs and, in several applications, HCFCs as well. The mobile air conditioning and household refrigeration industries have shifted rapidly from CFC-12 to ozone-safe refrigerants. Other applications, such as chillers and commercial refrigeration, have shifted from CFCs to HCFCs, HFCs or other fluids. Worldwide, a significant amount of installed refrigeration equipment still uses CFCs and HCFCs. As a consequence, service demand for CFCs and HCFCs remains high. • There is still much to be achieved in the solvents sector. Effort is still required to phase out ozone- depleting solvents in developing countries, especially by small- and medium-sized users. In particular, there is concern about the use of carbon tetrachloride for solvent applications by both large and small enterprises in some countries. 6. The Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol and the GEF
The Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol is part of the financial mechanism established under
the Protocol in June 1990. It pays the agreed incremental costs incurred by developing countries in phasing
out their consumption and production of ozone-depleting substances. It is administered by an Executive
Committee of seven developed and seven developing countries chosen by the Parties every year. The Fund's
allocation was $240 million for 1991-93, $455 million for 1994-96, $465 million for 1996-99 and $440
million for 2000-2. The replenishment for the three-year period 2003-5 was fixed at $474 million by the
Parties at their Rome meeting in November 2002. The Multilateral Fund has thus far approved the
disbursement of some 1.86 billion dollars for capacity building and projects to phase out ozone-depleting
substances. This year the Parties will decide on the replenishment for the next period, 2006-8.
Cumulative Allocations and Provision by the MLF and
ODS Phased Out Since 1991
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 6 - Multilateral Ozone Fund: Cumulative Funds Approved and ODS Phased Out.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established by the world community to help developing
countries address ozone depletion, climate change, biodiversity and international waters. The GEF also
supports projects and activities for phasing-out ozone-depleting substances in countries with economies in
transition, as most of these Central and East European countries are not eligible for Multilateral Fund
assistance. Between 1996 and 2000, GEF approved over $160 million to assist the following 17 countries:
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Additional funds
of $60 million have been ear-marked by GEF to assist these countries with the phase-out of HCFCs and
Methyl Bromide.
7. Implementing Agencies of the Multilateral Fund and GEF
The UN Environment Programme, the UN Development Programme and the World Bank implement the programmes of the Fund and the GEF in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition. In addition, the UN Industrial Development Organization was included later as an additional implementing agency of the Fund. UNEP is responsible for information exchange, institutional strengthening, networking and preparation of country programmes. It has assisted over 100 developing countries as well as countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. UNDP, UNIDO and the World Bank are responsible for technical assistance and investment projects for phasing out ozone-depleting substances in all countries receiving assistance. 8. The Remaining Challenges
The Protocol has been hailed as an extraordinary success so far, but there is no room for complacency because: Ratification is incomplete. Six countries have not yet ratified the Montreal Protocol, and many more have
not yet ratified the London, Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing Amendments.
Some countries with economies in transition have had difficulty complying with the Montreal
Protocol. This is due to the economic recession and political transition since 1989. The Russian Federation
and a few other countries admitted in 1996 that they would be unable to follow the phase-out time-table for
CFCs. Many, however, managed to complete the phase-out by the year 2002. The Parties asked the GEF to
provide this assistance, and it has thus far allocated over $160 million to these countries. In addition, the World Bank's Special Initiative raised $19 million from Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, UK and US to close down the production of CFCs and Halons in the Russian Federation by the year 2000. The GEF has approved a further $60 million to assist these Parties with the phase-out of HCFCs and Methyl Bromide. Illegal trade has increased. Although all new CFCs are now banned in industrialized countries, millions of
CFC-dependent refrigerators, automobile air conditioners, and other equipment are still in service.
Alternatives are available to service this equipment, but they can be more expensive. Recycled CFCs may be
used to maintain existing equipment, but it is difficult to distinguish between new and recycled CFCs. In
addition, while most consumption is forbidden, industrialized countries still produce some CFCs in order to
meet their own essential uses and to supply developing countries, as permitted by the Protocol. Some traders
illegally sell perhaps 20,000 tonnes of new CFCs in the industrialized countries every year in the guise of
recycled substances or as exports to developing countries. Key drivers for illegal trade appear to be the
continued demand for CFCs from developed countries to maintain CFC-dependent equipment after the total
phase-out date, the cost associated with the replacement or retrofitting of CFC-dependent equipment, the
absence or lack of enforcement of import and export controls, and the difficulty in distinguishing between
new and used CFCs (the Protocol allows the continued import and export of used CFCs).
The potential for methyl bromide to be adopted in more applications and by more countries is
worrying. Some countries imposed controls on this chemical because of its toxicity even before the concern
about its role in ozone depletion first arose. Many countries have ratified the 1992 Copenhagen Amendment,
which introduced controls on methyl bromide, resulting in considerable reductions. A number of developed
countries, however, have requested exemptions for continued uses of methyl bromide after their 1 January
2005 phase-out deadline. In addition, the Copenhagen Amendment does not control quarantine and pre-
shipment applications of methyl bromide, which was estimated to involve well over 11,000 tonnes in the
year 2002. The recent adoption of standard 15 of the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures of
the International Plant Protection Convention of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, which approves heat treatments and fumigation by methyl bromide for wood packaging to reduce
the risk of introducing or spreading pests associated with wood packaging used in trade, further raises the
potential for future increases in methyl bromide consumption in uncontrolled applications.
Atmospheric concentrations of Halons continue to increase even though production ended in 1994.
This is because Halons in existing fire-fighting equipment get emitted whenever there is a fire. This is a
concern because the bromine contained in Halons is 50 times more efficient than the chlorine in CFCs in
depleting ozone. An expert panel continues to update the Parties on the implications of de-commissioning
existing Halons systems and destroying the Halons they contain. Further work is aimed at ensuring new
airplanes do not use Halons.
ng Rati
xi 1.6
H-1211 Mi
H-1301 Mixing Ratio (pptv)
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Figure 7 - Measured Atmospheric Concentration of Halons at Cape Grim, Tasmania.
Developing countries must implement their phase out of CFCs, Halons and carbon tetrachloride
(CTC) according to the agreed schedule. Asian countries, in particular, have been increasing their
consumption due to their high rates of economic growth. They must now reverse this by reducing CFC and
halon consumption to less than 50% of their baseline, and CTC consumption to less than 85% of their
baseline in 2005. While consumption levels in the developed countries - which had been much higher on
both a per-capita and a national basis - have been virtually phased out, the Montreal Protocol can only
succeed if the developing countries - with 80% of world population - phase out these substances despite
their growing economies. The Multilateral Fund will continue to play an essential role in ensuring that this
happens.
A great quantity of used CFC-dependent equipment (e.g. refrigerators and air-conditioners) is being
exported to developing countries by countries that have phased out CFCs. These sales could make the
future CFC phase-out by developing countries more difficult by stimulating a large demand for CFCs to
maintain the equipment.
CFCs are being replaced, in part, by HFCs, which have a large global warming potential. The Kyoto
Protocol on climate change has included HFCs in the basket of six gases whose emissions are to be reduced
by the industrialised countries. Are the two global protocols sending confusing signals? Does the Kyoto
Protocol hinder the implementation of the Montreal Protocol? The Parties to the Montreal Protocol as well as
the Parties to the Climate Change Convention now have the reports of their scientific and technical panels on
how to minimise the emissions of HFCs. Implementation of the panels' recommendations by governments is
important.
Figure 8 - Worldwide Production of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs
9. Lessons of the Montreal Protocol
The Montreal Protocol offers many lessons that could be applied to solving other global environmental
issues:
• Adhere to the "precautionary approach" because waiting for complete scientific proof can delay action to the point where the damage will become irreversible. • Send consistent and credible signals to industry (e.g. by adopting legally binding phase-out schedules) so that they have an incentive to develop new and cost-effective alternative technologies. • Ensure that improved scientific understanding can be incorporated quickly into decisions about the • Promote universal participation by recognizing the "common but differentiated responsibility" of developing and developed countries and ensuring the necessary financial and technological support to developing countries. • Control measures should be based on an integrated assessment of science, economics, and technology. 10. Note to Journalists
This backgrounder was updated in November 2005. Official documents and other information is available
via the Internet at http://www.unep.org/ozone or at http://www.unep.ch/ozone. The Ozone Secretariat is
based in Nairobi. For interviews or additional information, contact:
¾ Nick Nuttall: Tel. (+254-20) 623084, Fax. (+254-20) 623692, e-mail: Nick.Nuttall@unep.org; or ¾ Michael Williams: Tel. (+41-22) 917 8242, fax (+41-22) 797 3464, e-mail: mwilliams@unep.ch; or ¾ Eric Falt: Tel. (+1-212) 963 8098, fax (+1-212) 963 8193, e-mail: Eric.Falt@unep.org.

Source: http://www.greenhopes.in/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/press_backgrounder.pdf