Science and Policy:
Montreal Protocol
Johannes Staehelin
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate
Science
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich
and SPARC Office director
Introduction: Science background
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone
(20 Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer)
UVB radiation
(UVB: 280-315nm: sun burn, skin cancer ….)
Total Ozone Series at Arosa
Interactions for political decisions
also see Reiner Grundmann, Transnationale Umweltpolitik zum Schutz der
Ozonschicht, USA und Deutschland im Vergleich, Campus Verlag, 1999.
Public
media
Science
Policy
Publications
in reviewed
journals
«Policy
makers»
Industry
Advisers
Legal power
(Start: 1839: Chrisitian Friedrich Schönbein discoverd ozone in Basel)
Early history of study of anthropogenic
destruction of the ozone layer
• Around 1970: Water vapour emitted by aircraft: destruction of
stratospheric ozone layer ?
• P. Crutzen and H. Johnston (1971): Destruction of ozone layer by
nitrogen oxides (by catalytic cycle) emitted from Super Sonic
Aircraft (à la Concorde) ?
• R. Stolarksi and R. Cicerone (1974): Destruction of ozone layer by
chlorine oxides (ClO/ClO2: ClOx) emitted from rocket fuel ?
• M. Molina and S. Rowland (1974): Destruction of ozone layer by
ClOx emitted from Clorofluorocarbons (CFCs)? CFCs and similar
compounds: «ozone depleting substances»
(J. Lovelock found CFC-11 in ambient air all over the northern hemisphere and in the
Antarctic with measurements from a research vessel).
Nobel price laureates for chemistry, 1995: Paul J. Crutzen, Mario. J. Molina and F.
Sherwood Rowland
Controversy in following decade …
• Molina and Rowland: Questioned by chemical industry (Du Pont,
market leader in the production of CFCs):
• Du Pont, New York Times, 1975: «Should reputable evidence show
that some fluorocarbons cause health hazard through depletion of
the ozone layer, we are prepared to stop production of the
offending compounds»
• National Academy of Sciences (USA): recommendation to ban CFC11 and -12 for non-essential uses (e.g. spray cans)
• 1977: USA decided to ban CFCs used as spray propellants
• Chemical industry: Sponsoring of scientific researach to prove that
the CFC destruction of the ozone layer is marginal ….. Ozone
destruction by models: several revisions.
• CFCs lifetime study, 1983…. Long atmospheric lifetimes … CFC-11:
75 years; CFC-12: 110 years
Prediction (by state-of-the-art computer
models) of global decrease in total ozone
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1974: 14%
1976: 7 %
1978: 15%
1979: 18%
1980: 14%
1981: 10%
1982: 7%
1983: 3%
1984: 0%
because of improvement
of reaction rate constants
used in mumerical
models
World wide emissions of ODS
chemical industry found other applications of CFCs
(cooling agents, applications in foam production)
First steps for global legislation
1975: WMO (World Meteorological Organization) intergovernmental scientific statement
warning of the danger to the ozone layer preparing the ground for legal action. 1976, UNEP called
for "an examination of the need and justification for recommending any national and international
controls over the release of man-made chemicals“ and UNEP Governing Council authorized for a
meeting of experts (governments, intergovernmental and non- governmental organizations
(NGOs)). WMO/UNEP meeting (Washington, DC, March 1977). WMO: "Survey of the state of
knowledge of the ozone layer" (80 pages) with proposals (monitoring of ozone and relevant rare
species, data analysis, modelling, laboratory photochemistry, and UV-B measurements). UNEP laid
the foundation for international action: Representatives of 32 countries adopted "World Plan of
Action on the Ozone Layer“: research plan covering monitoring of ozone and solar radiation,
the assessment of the effect of ozone depletion on human health, ecosystems and climate, and the
development of ways to assess the costs and benefits of control measures. WMO took
responsibility for the atmospheric research plan. UNEP was given "a broad coordinating and
catalytic role". Through the Action Plan, governmental experts accepted that there was a
potential problem: extent to be determined, and recommended actions to get to grips with it.
Some countries took action to control CFCs: USA, Canada, Norway and Sweden began phasing out
their use in aerosol cans (except essential medical and other uses). 1980 the Commission of
European Community agreed not to increase its capacity to produce CFCs 11 and 12 and called for
a 30% cut in their use in spray cans by 1982.
Review implementation of Action Plan: UNEP set up a Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer
(representatives of countries with major scientific programs involved in the Action Plan, WMO, the
World Health Organization and NGOS). Regular meetings until the mid-1980s and became focal
point for international action. Hypotheses were debated by scientists and challenged by industry
until the requirement for control of CFCs became accepted.
1980s: Science-Policy intercations
Science
• Since 1978: continuous
monitoring of the ozone layer
from satellites: differenecs
between ground-based and
satellite measuremens:
→ International Ozone Trends
Panel Report
• 1985: Farman et al. (Nature):
«Antarctic ozone hole»
• 1988: Consent in science
community about
anthropogenic cause of ozone
hole
Scientific Reports and political
action
• WMO 1985: Atmospheric
Ozone
• 1985: Vienna Convention
• 1987: Montreal Protocol
• WMO, 1988: International
Ozone Trends Panel Report
Antarctic Ozone «Hole»
Strong decrease in
ozone layer over
Antarctica, starting
in Austral Winter.
Fully developed in
Southern spring.
Ozone hole refilled by
end of November.
Scientific interpretation
Controversial until
1988: Requirements for
ozone hole: very low
temp. in polar vortex,
PSC catalysts.
Change in Du Pont position –
beginning 1986: Reasons ?
• Patents for alternatives: No
• Probably knowledge about significant
downward trends in ozone layer in Northern
midlatitudes (Internat. Ozone Trend Panel
Report): afraid of legal claims of skin cancer
Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone
layer (United Environemental Program, UNEP), 1985;
Art 2: General Obligations
•
•
•
•
The Parties shall take appropriate measures …
To this end the Parties shall, in accordance with the means at their disposal and their
capabilities:
– Co-operate by means of systematic observations, research and information exchange in
order to better understand and assess the effects of human activities on the ozone layer
and the effects on human health and the environment from modification of the ozone
layer;
– Adopt appropriate legislative or administrative measures and co-operate in harmonizing
appropriate policies to control, limit, reduce or prevent human activities under their
jurisdiction or control should it be found that these activities have or are likely to have
adverse effects resulting from modification or likely modification of the ozone layer;
– Co-operate in the formulation of agreed measures, procedures and standards for the
implementation of this Convention, with a view to the adoption of protocols and
annexes;
– Co-operate with competent international bodies to implement effectively this Convention
and protocols to which they are party.
The provisions of this Convention shall in no way affect the right of Parties to adopt, in
accordance with international law, domestic measures additional to those referred to in
paragraphs 1 and 2 above, nor shall they affect additional domestic measures already taken by
a Party, provided that these measures are not incompatible with their obligations under this
Convention.
The application of this article shall be based on relevant scientific and technical considerations
Montreal Protocol (1987) (sign. 16. Sept.
1987; entered into force: 1. Jan. 1989)
• Phase-out Management plans for
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFCs) (HCFCs:
replacements of CFCs, less ozone destruction …)
• Parties need (annually) to report production, import,
export (ozone secretariat, UNEP, Nairobi)
• Industrialized and developing countries: different
phase-out management plans
• developing countries supported by Multilateral fund to
introduce new technologies
• Science community: WMO/UNEP Scientific Assessment
of Ozone Depletion: 1989, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003,
2007, 2010, ..
Several enforcements: Amendements and Adjustments
World wide emissions of ODS
Secondary benefit of Montreal Protocol
However...
• CFCs (containing Cl,F,C), HCFCs (containing
H,Cl,F,C) are being replaced by HFCs
(containing H,F,C) that don’t destroy the
stratospheric ozone layer, but do effect
climate (act as greenhouse gases)
• Proposal: Extend Montreal Protcol to HFCs for
climate protection
Interactions: Science and Policy
Science
Publications in
reviewed
journals
Policy
«Policy makers»
Scientists: No legal power
Obligation on scientists to provide information («Bringschuld») ?
-> Loss of credibilty of science if scientists are involved in politics ?
Montreal Protocol:
Strongly driven by Science
• Scientists (such as S. Rowland): high priority
communication with public
• Presence «ozone hole» in media
• New role of scientists: Scientific Reports
(WMO/UNEP Reports)
- important for science planning
- understandable for policy makers ?
(chapter summaries)