INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

University of Cebu
College of Law
Worksheet No. 3
April 3, 2020

Submitted by:

Doreen J. Labbay
M2 (3:00-5:00PM)
 SUMMARY REPORT ON THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES
THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER

The summary report will be divided into the following: Salient points; status of
implementation; institutional arrangement; and dispute settlement.

I. SALIENT POINTS

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 stratospheric ozone layer filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation, which is associated
with an increased prevalence of skin cancer and cataracts, reduced agricultural productivity,
and disruption of marine ecosystems. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have amended
the Protocol to enable, among other things, the control of new chemicals and the creation
of a financial mechanism to enable developing countries to comply.

The Montreal Protocol also includes a unique adjustment provision that enables the
Parties to the Protocol to respond quickly to new scientific information and agree to
accelerate the reductions required on chemicals already covered by the Protocol. These
adjustments are then automatically applicable to all countries that ratified the Protocol.
Since that time, the Montreal Protocol has been repeatedly strengthened by both
controlling additional ozone-depleting substances (ODS) as well as by moving up the
date by which already controlled substances must be phased out. In addition to
adjustments and amendments to the Montreal Protocol, the Parties to the Protocol meet
annually and take a variety of decisions aimed at enabling effective implementation of
this important legal instrument.

Furthermore, the key features of the Montreal Protocol is highlighted in the following
articles:

ARTICLE 2: Control Measures

This involves the Control Measures on the following substances:

 2A: CFCs
 2B: Halons
 2C: Other gully halogenated CFCs
 2D: Carbon tetrachloride
 2E: Methyl chloroform
 2F: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
 2G: Hydrobromofluorocarbons
 2H: Methyl bromide
 2I: Bromochloromethane
  2J: Hyrdrofluorocarbons

Any Party may transfer to another Party any portion of its calculated level of production
set out (except HFC) provided that the total combined calculated levels of production of
the Parties concerned for any group of controlled substances do not exceed the
production limits set out in those Articles for that group.
The Parties may decide:
(a) whether any substances, and if so which, should be added to or removed from any
annex to this Protocol, and
(b) the mechanism, scope and timing of the control measures that should apply to
those substances;
ARTICLE 3: Calculation of control levels
This article provides for the calculation of control levels for the substances enumerated,
especially in the following activites:
1. Production;
2. Imports and exports;
3. Consumption; and
4. Emissions of substances generated in each facility;

ARTICLE 4: Control of trade with non-parties, parties and licensing

This article posts a ban on each party on the import and export of the controlled
substances to any state that is not a party to this protocol. As of 1 January 1990, each
party shall ban the import of the controlled substances in Annex A from any State not
party to this Protocol.
 
Where, after the phase-out date applicable to it for a controlled substance, a Party is
unable, despite having taken all practicable steps to comply with its obligation under the
Protocol, to cease production of that substance for domestic consumption, other than for
uses agreed by the Parties to be essential, it shall ban the export of used, recycled and
reclaimed quantities of that substance, other than for the purpose of destruction. They
must comply with the licensing requirements.

The Montreal protocol also caters to special situations of developing countries.

II. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION

Article 16 provides that the this Protocol shall enter into force on 1 January 1989,
provided that at least eleven instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval of the
Protocol or accession thereto have been deposited by States or regional economic
integration organizations representing at least two-thirds of 1986 estimated global
consumption of the controlled substances, and the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 17
of the Convention have been fulfilled. In the event that these conditions have not been
fulfilled by that date, the Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day following the
date on which the conditions have been fulfilled.

The landmark agreement was signed in 1987 and entered into force in 1989. The United
States ratified the Montreal Protocol in 1988 and has joined four subsequent amendments.
The United States has been a leader within the Protocol throughout its existence, and has
taken strong domestic action to phase out the production and consumption of ODS such as
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons.

The Montreal Protocol sits under the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone
Layer (the Vienna Convention). The Vienna Convention was adopted in 1985 following
international discussion of scientific discoveries in the 1970s and 1980s highlighting the
adverse effect of human activity on ozone levels in the stratosphere and the discovery of
the ‘ozone hole’. Its objectives are to promote cooperation on the adverse effects of
human activities on the ozone layer.

With the full and sustained implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer is
projected to recover by the middle of this century. Without this treaty, ozone depletion
would have increased tenfold by 2050 compared to current levels, and resulted in
millions of additional cases of melanoma, other cancers and eye cataracts. It has been
estimated, for example, that the Montreal Protocol is saving an estimated two million
people each year by 2030 from skin cancer.

III. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol — the two global agreements on
ozone protection — are implemented by the parties, with guidance and support from key
institutions that bring together science, policy and diplomacy for the protection of all life
on Earth.
Each treaty has a governing body — the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna
Convention and the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, which take decisions
on all matters related to the treaties. The Ozone Secretariat provides administrative
support to both.
The three Assessment Panels (TEAP, SAP and EEAP) provide guidance to the parties on
issues related to the science of the ozone layer protection, the technical and financial
implications of the transition to new refrigerants and the implications to human health
and the ecosystems from ozone layer depletion. 
Every year, parties to the Montreal Protocol convene a Meeting of the Parties. A Bureau
and an Open-ended Working Group meet separately in between these meetings to review
the implementation of the decisions of previous meetings and prepare for the next one.
The Working Group also adopts recommendations and forwards them to the Meeting of
the Parties for consideration and final decision.
The financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol is the Multilateral Fund, which assists
Article 5 parties in implementing the decisions taken by the Meeting of the Parties and to
comply with the phase-out targets. Financial and technical assistance as well as transfer
of technology are provided to Article 5 parties through four Implementing Agencies
(UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO and World Bank). An Executive Committee manages the Fund,
with support provided by the Multilateral Fund Secretariat.   
The Vienna Convention is governed by a different structure, which comprises a Bureau
and a group of Ozone Research Managers who look mostly at the science of monitoring
and research. The Conference of the Parties meets every three years jointly with the
Meeting of the Parties.
Cooperation between all these institutions ensures that progress is monitored, and that the
two treaties are implemented effectively, and continuously.
The Multilateral Fund (Fund) was established in 1991 to assist developing countries meet
their Montreal Protocol commitments. To date, the Fund has approved activities
including industrial conversion, technical assistance, training, and capacity building
worth over US$3.0 billion. The main objective of the Fund is to assist developing country
parties whose annual ODS consumption falls below a specified threshold to comply with
the control measures of the Protocol.

The UNEP Ozone Secretariat hosts a Data Access Center that reports on ODS data
submitted by each country, including the United States. The United States is a founding
partner of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), a global effort focused on
reducing short-lived climate pollutants across sectors. CCAC partners are currently
supporting the development of HFC inventories and studies, information exchange on
policy and technical issues, demonstration projects to validate and promote climate-
friendly alternatives and technologies, and capacity-building activities to disseminate
information on emerging technologies and practices to transition away from high-GWP
HFCs and minimize HFC leakages.

IV. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer provides the
mechanism for the settlement of disputes between Parties to the Convention and the
Montreal Protocol concerning interpretation or application.

In the first instance, “the parties concerned shall seek solutions by negotiation”. Then “if
they cannot reach agreement through negotiation, they may jointly seek the good offices
of, or request mediation by, a third party”.

Disputes can also be submitted to arbitration and to the International Court of Justice, if
the parties to a dispute agree. A dispute before the ICJ would be settled according to the
rules and principles of international law. The dispute settlement procedures of the
Convention and the Protocol can only be invoked when the issues raised concern the
interpretation or implementation of the agreements. Despite the fact that neither the
Vienna Convention nor the Montreal Protocol require binding trade restrictions between
parties, a dispute concerning a trade measure could presumably still fall under the
regime’s dispute settlement procedures.

It may be noted in this context that in the section on Conclusions and Recommendations
of the December 1996 Report of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment, WTO
Members stated their view that “if a dispute arises between WTO members, parties to an
MEA, over the use of trade measures they are applying between themselves pursuant to
the MEA, they should consider trying to resolve it through the dispute settlement
mechanisms available under the MEA”14. In the event that a WTO dispute settlement
procedure were initiated, the Dispute Settlement Panel would be charged with examining
the matter pursuant to the relevant WTO provisions, in accordance with “customary rules
of interpretation of public international law” (Article 3(2) of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding).