What has the international community done to combat ozone depletion?

A strong international consensus that the ozone layer needs to be protected has developed over the past decade. The first step towards turning consensus into global action was taken in March 1985, ahead of firm scientific proof that man-made chemicals were damaging the ozone layer. This was the adoption of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Parties to the Convention agreed to take 'appropriate measures' to safeguard the ozone layer, and anticipated the negotiation of protocols for specific measures.

The need for a protocol arose almost immediately, when the first evidence of the Antarctic ozone hole was published in June 1985. Global negotiations for a protocol were put into top gear, and resulted in adoption in September 1987 of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Montreal Protocol came into force in January 1989 and is the legal basis for the worldwide effort to safeguard the ozone layer through controls on production, consumption and use of ozone-depleting substances.

By December 1995, 150 countries had ratified the Montreal Protocol, so becoming Parties to it and legally bound by its requirements. About a third are developed and two-thirds are developing countries. The original Montreal Protocol defined measures that parties had to take to limit production and consumption of eight ozone-depleting substances (ODS), known in the language of the Protocol as 'controlled substances'. At meetings held in London and Copenhagen in 1990 and 1992, the controls were strengthened and broadened to cover other chemicals. Instead of merely a reduction in production and consumption of five CFCs and three halons, the Protocol now requires developed countries to phase out 15 CFCs, three halons, 34 HBFCs, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. A longer-term reduction schedule, also leading to complete phase out, has been agreed for 40 HCFCs. The list of con-trolled substances is now extended to include methyl bromide as agreed at the 7th Meeting of the Parties.

Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to reduce and then eliminate the use of ODS before substitutes and alternative technologies were fully available. This has proved a successful strategy. Industries and manufacturers have already developed alternative substances and technologies for almost every former use of ODS. Many countries are already well on their way to a complete phase out of ODS.

Recognizing developing countries' need for economic development and their relatively low historical use of CFCs, the Montreal Protocol grants developing countries a 'grace period' of ten years more than developed countries to implement the reduction and phase-out measures required by the Protocol. In addition, at their 1990 meeting in London, the Parties created a financial mechanism to provide technical and financial assistance to developing countries' ozone protection pro-grammes.

To be eligible to receive support under the financial mechanism, Parties must be developing countries and must consume less than 0.3 kg per capita per annum of controlled substances. More than 100 because their status is defined in Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol.

How are ozone-depleting substances being phased out?

Many alternatives exist in the former applications of ODS, involving both substitute chemicals and alternative technologies. In existing uses of ODS, conservation, recovery, recycling and leak prevention are important routes to near-term reductions in emissions. In refrigeration and air conditioning, the main alternative to ODS is to use a non-CFC refrigerant, such as a hydrocarbon or ammonia.

HCFCs are being used in some applications, but only as stop gaps, or 'transitional substances', since they too are due to be phased out eventually due to their ozone-depletion potential. Some hydrofluoro-carbons (HFCs) are also being used. HFCs contain no chlorine and are ozone benign. However, they are potent greenhouse gases.

For existing refrigeration and cooling equipment, proper maintenance can reduce leakage considerably. This also cuts costs. Some equipment can be retrofitted for alternative chemicals. CFCs from old refrigerators and air conditioners are increasingly being recovered and recycled before the equipment is disposed of. In the plastic foam manufacturing industry, CFCs have been used as blowing agents for both rigid (insulating) foams and flexible (structural) foams. Several alternative blowing agents are now in widespread use, including HCFCs, hydrocarbons, methylene chloride, carbon dioxide and water. Several ODS have been used as cleaning agents, including CFC-113, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. They are being replaced in a variety of ways.

Alternatives, such as alcohol, terpenes or water, have proved effective for many industrial needs. In the electronics industry, new techniques have made it possible to eliminate cleaning in some operations.

CFCs 11 and 12 have been widely used as propellants in aerosol spray cans. In many countries, this use has already virtually ceased.

Alternative propellants, such as hydrocarbons, have replaced virtually all the former uses of CFCs. In addition, mechanical pumps have been developed that do not need a chemical propellant at all.

Halons for fire fighting are being replaced with other fire-quenching compounds such as water, carbon dioxide or foam. New high-pressure water mists are being developed for oil and gasoline fires. Inert where the other solutions have serious drawbacks. Halons in existing fire-fighting equipment are increasingly being reclaimed and stored in halon banks to conserve stocks, prevent emissions to the atmosphere and be available for 'essential uses' as agreed under the Montreal Protocol.

What are the benefits to companies of phasing out ozone-depleting substances?

There are two main reasons to convert to ozone-friendly technologies as soon as possible. The first is environmental benefit: the total chlorine and bromine loading in the atmosphere will determine how severe ozone depletion will become and how long it will last.

The sooner emissions are stopped, the faster the ozone layer will repair itself. Only if all companies and all countries cooperate in a rapid phase out of ODS can even more severe ozone depletion be avoided. The second is economic benefit: under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, most production of CFCs and halons will cease in the near future.

Trade restrictions will further limit supplies. What is left on the market will become scarce and expensive. Companies that abandon ODS early could benefit from lower costs. Industries that switch to ozone-benign technologies could benefit from consumer demand for ozone-friendly products. Users of ODS-containing equipment, such as air conditioners and refrigeration units, could save costs by preventing leaks, with the advantage that better maintenance also reduces the likelihood of breakdowns.

What part have developing countries played in ozone depletion?

Historically, developing countries' use of ODS and manufacture or import of ODS-containing equipment has been very limited. In 1986, the developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America accounted for only 21 per cent of global consumption of CFCs and halons. Developing countries are responsible for an even smaller proportion of emissions; 90 per cent of CFCs are currently released in latitudes corresponding to North America, Europe and Japan.World ODS consumption is falling-but not everywhere

However, as developed countries phase out ODS and others become more industrialized, the developing countries' share of consumption is increasing. Developed countries accounted for 65 per cent in 1986, but only 47 per cent in 1992. Asia's share of consumption rose over the same period from 19 to 30 per cent. The consumption share of Eastern Europe increased from 14 to 21 per cent. Trends in the geographical distribution of ODS emissions mean that developing countries' policies on ODS will become increasingly significant for the global environment. Several Article 5 developing countries are rapidly industrializing; at the same time, economic growth in these countries is creating much greater consumer demand for products that use or contain ODS. Two examples are refrigerators and air conditioners. If the new demands are met by ozone-destructive technologies, emissions of CFCs and halons will rise drastically.

Increases in population and economic growth in countries such as Brazil, China and India could lead to a doubling of CFC-consumption every five years, and it would soon reach the levels attained by the industrialized nations a few years ago. The demand for ODS in developing countries, if unconstrained, has been calculated at 1 million tonnes in 2010.

How is the international community helping developing countries to phase out ODS?

Parties to the Montreal Protocol have agreed that developing countries need financial and technical assistance to phase out ODS. To meet this need, the Parties have established the Multilateral Fund as part of the financial mechanism which assists Article 5 countries with their reduction and phase-out efforts. Contributions to the Fund are made mainly by industrialized countries.

The Fund provides Article 5 countries with financial assistance in developing and implementing projects and programmes aimed at phasing out ODS. Technical expertise and assistance, information on new technologies, and training and demonstration programmes can also be provided by the Fund.

The Multilateral Fund is managed by an Executive Committee, made up of representatives of 14 Parties to the Montreal Protocol, with equal representation from developed and developing countries. The Committee approves project funding and develops guidelines for the administration of the Fund. Four organizations have been designated Implementing Agencies for the Multilateral Fund:
 

• The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) assists Parties in investment project planning and preparation, country programmes and institutional strengthening, and runs training and demonstration projects.

• The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), through the UNEP IE OzonAction Programme, collects data, provides an information clearinghouse, assists low-volume consuming countries in the preparation of country programmes and institutional strengthening projects, and offers training and networking assistance.

• The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) runs small- to medium-scale investment projects and country programmes, and offers technical assistance and training for individual factories.

• The World Bank develops and implements investment projects and assists in the preparation of country programmes.