Future of the Montreal Protocol: Lessons Learned and Applicability to Other Environmental Issues

The Montreal Protocol is a landmark environmental agreement that has achieved unprecedented success. In 1974 when Drs. Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland published their theory that CFCs – chemicals used in hundreds of important applications – could damage the Ozone Layer, no one could have predicted that almost thirty years later we would be celebrating the elimination of nearly all the production and consumption of these chemicals around the world. We can celebrate this result because of the hard work of those individuals and organizations being recognized this week by UNEP. The United States is deeply grateful for the time, energy, and passion invested by so many in making the ambition of healing the Ozone Layer a reality. Since President Reagan urged the adoption of the Vienna Convention in 1985, every U.S. administration since has been committed to the success of this vital accord.

The 191 Montreal Protocol Parties have eliminated more than 95% of all ozone depleting chemicals controlled by the Protocol; developing countries alone have phased out hundred of thousands of tons of these chemicals. Reductions made by all Parties have resulted in real environmental and human health benefits. Our estimates indicate that by 2165 in the Unites States alone, the Montreal Protocol will have prevented more than 6.3 million people from contracting a fatal case of skin cancer. Scientists expect that the Ozone Layer will recover near the middle of this century as a direct result of the actions agreed to in this treaty. The fact that a problem of this magnitude can be identified and largely solved in the span of a single lifetime is indeed a monumental achievement.

This week in Montreal we have an opportunity to push our achievements to a new level by accelerating the phase-out for hydrofluorocarbons or HCFCs. A many of you know, the United States has tabled an aggressive proposal which would not only hasten recovery of the ozone layer but also provide significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is our strong hope that the parties can adopt this important decision during this 20th anniversary meeting of the parties.

George Shultz, who held the position of Secretary of State under President Reagan from 1982 to 1989, recently published an opinion piece in the Washington Post. In that editorial, he cited the Montreal Protocol as the most successful environmental treaty, but also as the example we should follow in developing a new agreement to address global climate change. Secretary Shultz cited the Protocol’s strengths as the following: actions called for under the Montreal Protocol were aggressive but realistic; the treaty was designed with universal coverage meaning that all countries accepted control measures; the negotiating structure involved all constituencies so that the final treaty could be accepted in all quarters; and market mechanisms were built into the treaty to enable compliance at a reasonable cost.

In reading the Secretary’s analysis, I considered the question: How was the promise of the Protocol realized? I believe the answer is “through the power of consensus.” Consensus is a universally agreed to expression of political will and commitment to achieve an agreed objective., Without consensus an agreement may have more limited impact. Each of the following elements helped to foster a rich environment for consensus in the case of the Montreal Protocol by laying the appropriate foundations for decision-making and also providing enough flexibility to satisfy the many and different concerns of the many and different actors. These elements are: agreement on ambitious but pragmatic goals; flexible approaches to implementation;a solid foundation of partnership between developed and developing countries and;commitment to science and science based decision making.

We should pause a moment to appreciate the fact that no vote has ever been taken under the Montreal Protocol and to consider the tremendous benefits to the environment from our actions under this agreement.

Parties negotiated the Protocol in 1987 and subsequently amended it four times to strengthen its controls on the production and consumption of ozone depleting substances. The ability to set goals and revisit them enabled Parties to build support and political will for eventual agreement for a complete phase-out of all significant ozone depleting substances.

The phase-out commitments outlined in the Protocol call for reductions that are spread out over time and thereby allow for gradual change in the market place, reducing the cost of compliance and making the transition appear close to seamless to consumers. In most instances the Protocol also allows for limited exemptions that provide a much needed safety valve for those special uses where alternatives may not yet be fully available.

In addition, the entrepreneurial efforts of the private sector in developing and commercializing alternatives gave governments the assurance that the goals set in the Protocol could be achieved. Thus, the prudent planning for the gradual phaseout of ozone depleting substances, provisions for exemptions, and the commitment of industry to technological solutions, made the ambitious goal of the Montreal Protocol pragmatic and achievable.

As we think about other environmental challenges we face, such as tackling the complex issue of climate change, we can certainly take lessons from our experience under the Montreal Protocol. Ultimately, in order for there to be a consensus approach to this issue, we must identify a path forward that provides for economic growth while also allowing for new and better technologies that minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing climate change must become synonymous with promoting sustainable and clean economic development to achieve the broad-based and long-term political consensus necessary to ensure action and sustained commitment.

Another hallmark of the Protocol is its flexible design-- which sets the level of required reductions but does not specify the means that must be used to achieve them. In the United States, we have used tradable permits to control the production and consumption of ozone depleting substances and have encouraged re-use of ozone depleting substances in our domestic regimes. Other nations have chosen different paths. The Protocol’s structure, which focuses on the ends not the means, has helped encourage nearly universal participation in the treaty and created a culture of compliance where both developed and developing countries have an impressive track record of not only meeting their obligations but, in fact, exceeding them.

In addressing other environmental concerns, we can benefit from taking a similar approach. We can set overall goals while allowing and encouraging countries to meet those goals using approaches that best suit their particular circumstances. For example, when governments discuss chemicals management in international settings, it is clear that there are differing philosophies and long-standing systems in place on how to regulate chemicals. The Montreal Protocol can serve as a useful model in that context by creating a forum for exchange of information and ideas while recognizing that each government intends to, and should, follow its own path on how best to achieve agreed environmental and human health goals.

The special partnership between developed and developing countries that underpins the Protocol is another key feature that has led to its success. While developing countries have a different timeline for the phase-out of ozone depleting substances, the responsibility to protect the Ozone Layer is shared in equal measure. The results I’ve described could only be achieved by action from all Parties- North and South, large and small. The developed world led the way by taking the first step, but developing countries had their own commitments in place to follow suit. The development of new technologies as well as cost effective financial assistance to developing economies provided needed capacity to facilitate global transition. The United States has contributed nearly a half a billion dollars to the Multilateral Fund since its inception to facilitate developing country compliance. In addition, U.S. industry has spent billions of dollars to date in developing alternative technologies.

While donor countries have made significant investments in the Multilateral Fund, recipient countries have made investments too. The fund has clear and strict guidelines to ensure that monies are targeted to compliance obligations and cost-effective approaches. The Fund’s responsible approach -- to share the financial burden of compliance between developed and developing countries while maintaining a strong emphasis on cost-effectiveness -- has helped developing countries achieve their compliance obligations. It has also helped developed countries to maintain their contributions to this instrument. The principles of responsible burden sharing and cost-effectiveness should continue to guide the Parties this week as they deliberate many important issues, including proposals to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs.

Lastly, the role of science in developing the Protocol and informing the decision-making process can not be understated. Without the work of Nobel winning chemists Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland, we would not be here today celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Protocol. Their work provided strong impetus for a global consensus on the need to take action. Sound and compelling science about the effects of human activities on the Earth’s protective Ozone Layer and the resulting human health effects created a groundswell of support for the negotiation of the Protocol. The United States continues to support scientific research and monitoring through the Vienna Convention and through the provision of in-kind expertise and equipment from scientific agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In addition, we as Parties rely on the good work of the Science Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in providing robust, scientifically-based and, policy-neutral data. In other fora, the same is true -- robust scientific work should provide clear and objective information to help policymakers fully understand and define various environmental problems that we face as a global community.

The United States is proud of its leadership in developing the Montreal Protocol, most importantly because of its achievements in protecting and restoring the Ozone Layer. We also take pride in the Protocol’s design -- a design that allows for ambitious yet pragmatic goals, relies on developed and developing countries in equal measure, and has at its core the principal of science. While we are here in Montreal celebrating our successes, let us remember that we have a special privilege and obligation to share the lessons of the Protocol so that others may draw upon our experience when addressing other pressing global, environmental concerns.