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 XXI/9: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons and environmentally sound alternatives

Noting that the transition from, and phase-out of, ozone-depleting substances has implications for climate system protection;

Recalling that decision XIX/6 requests the Parties to accelerate the phase-out of production and consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs);

Mindful of the need to safeguard the climate change benefits associated with phase-out of HCFCs;

Aware of the increasing availability of low-Global warming potential (GWP) alternatives to HCFCs, in particular in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and foam sectors;

Aware also of the need to appropriately ensure the safe implementation and use of low-GWP technologies and products;

Recalling para 9 and 11 (b) of decision XIX/6;

  1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), in its May 2010 Progress Report and subsequently in its 2010 full assessment, to provide the latest technical and economic assessment of available and emerging alternatives and substitutes to HCFCs; and the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) in its 2010 assessment to assess, using a comprehensive methodology, the impact of alternatives to HCFCs on the environment, including on the climate; and both the SAP and the TEAP to integrate the findings in their assessments into a synthesis report;
  2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in its 2010 progress report:
    1. To list all sub-sectors using HCFCs, with concrete examples of technologies where low-GWP alternatives are used, indicating what substances are used, conditions of application, their costs, relative energy efficiency of the applications and, to the extent possible, available markets and percentage share in those markets and collecting concrete information from various sources including information voluntarily provided by Parties and industries. To further ask TEAP to compare these alternatives with other existing technologies, in particular, high-GWP technologies that are in use in the same sectors;
    2. To identify and characterize the implemented measures for ensuring safe application of low-GWP alternative technologies and products as well as barriers to their phase-in, in the different sub-sectors, collecting concrete information from various sources including information voluntarily provided by Parties and industries;
    3. To provide a categorization and reorganization of the information previously provided in accordance with decision XX/8 as appropriate, updated to the extent practical, to inform the Parties of the uses for which low- or no-GWP and/or other suitable technologies are or will soon be commercialized, including to the extent possible the predicted amount of high-GWP alternatives to ozone-depleting substances uses that can potentially be replaced;
  3. To request the Ozone Secretariat to provide the UNFCCC Secretariat with the report of the workshop on high global-warming-potential alternatives for ozone-depleting substances;
  4. To encourage Parties to promote policies and measures aimed at avoiding the selection of high-GWP alternatives to HCFCs and other ozone-depleting substances in those applications where other market-available, proven and sustainable alternatives exist that minimise impacts on the environment, including on climate, as well as meeting other health, safety and economic considerations in accordance with decision XIX/6;
  5. To encourage Parties to promote the further development and availability of low-GWP alternatives to HCFCs and other ozone-depleting substances that minimise environmental impacts particularly for those specific applications where such alternatives are not presently available and applicable;
  6. To request the Executive Committee as a matter of urgency to expedite the finalisation of its guidelines on HCFCs in accordance with Decision XIX/6;
  7. To request the Executive Committee, when developing and applying funding criteria for projects and programmes regarding in particular the phase-out of HCFCs:
    1. to take into consideration paragraph 11 of decision XIX/6;
    2. to consider providing additional funding and/or incentives for additional climate benefits where appropriate;
    3. to take into account, when considering the cost-effectiveness of projects and programmes, the need for climate benefits; and
    4. to consider in accordance with decision XIX/6, further demonstrating the effectiveness of low-GWP alternatives to HCFCs, including in air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors in high ambient temperature areas in Article 5 countries and to consider demonstration and pilot projects in air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors which apply environmentally sound alternatives to HCFCs;
  8. To encourage Parties to consider reviewing and amending as appropriate, policies and standards which constitute barriers to or limit the use and application of products with low- or zero‑GWP alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, particularly when phasing out HCFCs.