The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is a global agreement to protect the Earth’s ozone layer by phasing out the chemicals that deplete it. This phase-out plan includes both the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. The landmark agreement was signed in 1987 and entered into force in 1989.

The parties to the Protocol meet once a year to make decisions aimed at ensuring the successful implementation of the agreement. These include adjusting or amending the Protocol, which has been done six times since its creation. The most recent amendment, the Kigali Amendment, called for the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in 2016. These HFCs were used as replacements for a batch of ozone-depleting substances eliminated by the original Montreal Protocol. Although they do not deplete the ozone layer, they are known to be powerful greenhouse gases and, thus, contributors to climate change.

The Montreal Protocol provided a set of practical, actionable tasks that were universally agreed on. The Protocol has successfully met its objectives thus far and continues to safeguard the ozone layer today. Thanks to the collaborative effort of nations around the world, the ozone layer is well on its way to recovery.

Decision V/8: Consideration of alternatives

The Fifth Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. V/8:

  1. That each Party is requested, as far as possible and as appropriate, to give consideration in selecting alternatives and substitutes, bearing in mind, inter alia, Article 2F, paragraph 7, of the Copenhagen Amendment regarding hydrochlorofluorocarbons, to:
    1. Environmental aspects;
    2. Human health and safety aspects;
    3. The technical feasibility, the commercial availability and performance;
    4. Economic aspects, including cost comparisons among different technology options taking into account:
      1. All interim steps leading to final ODS elimination;
      2. Social costs;
      3. Dislocation costs, etc.
    5. Country-specific circumstances and due local expertise;
  2. To note that the Executive Committee is taking the above considerations into account as far as information is available;
  3. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical Options Committees in the context of finalizing its report, to provide information on which alternatives and substitutes best satisfied the above considerations, and to update this information on an annual basis;