Dear colleagues,
Thank you for your responses. Let me clarify that what I previously
included is NOT the official ENB analysis but a rough draft
containing my own personal observations and unpublished thoughts on
the process. The officially published ENB analysis, edited by Pam
Chasek, can be found at http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb1960e.pdf
It contains additional information, including on non-HCFC issues such
as illegal trade of ODS. Sincere apologies for any possible
misunderstanding.
Allison, it would indeed be interesting to hear from you what Steve
Anderson says. Please let us know. The more perspectives we hear the
better.
Cheers,
Rado
Radoslav S. Dimitrov, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Western Ontario
Social Science Centre
London, Ontario
Canada N6A 5C2
Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023
Fax +1(519) 661-3904
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 25-Sep-07, at 2:14 PM, phaas wrote:
Thanks Rado for sharing this. What is the coy reference to to
"another important G8 player"? In the past ENB has excelled at
citing actors by names, and not hiding behind UN social conventions.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Radoslav Dimitrov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wil Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Global Environmental
Education" <gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu>
Cc: "Samuel Barkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:54 PM
Subject: correction
Oops, I just realized that the draft commentary I included in my
previous message contained one paragraph written by someone else
(another ENB writer who was also in Montreal). Below is the
corrected, original version of my draft. I hope this information
is useful.
Cheers,
Rado
The nineteenth meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol
opened to much fanfare. The meeting marked the twentieth
anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, a treaty that pundits regard
as a spectacular success in global environmental politics. In the
keynote address, former Canadian Prime Minster of Canada Brian
Mulroney portrayed the Montreal Protocol as “the single most
successful international agreement to date.” This sentiment
appears to be widely in the policy world, as various speakers
from government delegations, international organizations and
environmental NGOs showered the process with superlatives
throughout the six-day meeting in Montreal. Newspapers around the
world ran articles that lavished the event with attention.
EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS
The ozone process could easily have afforded to lie on its
laurels and bask in the approbation of the world. Instead,
delegates moved swiftly to forge out yet another key agreement,
on accelerating the HCFCs phase-out. Thus, instead of merely
receiving the accolades, the process produced a new substantive
proof that it deserves them well. The remainder of this analysis
reflects on the dynamics and achievements of the meeting, the
considerable strengths of the ozone process and the challenges
that lie ahead.
The celebration provided the context of the meeting and infused
it with an upbeat and festive atmosphere. The well-organized and
productive meeting in Montreal demonstrated that the process is a
smooth and effective mechanism for decisionmaking. Delegates
maintained a positive and cordial tone during the negotiations,
displayed a constructive spirit of cooperation, and made mutual
compromises. None of the tectonic rifts and acrimonious debates
that characterize some other international policy processes were
evident here.
ANOTHER NEW HORIZON: HCFCs
Switching gears to move faster on eliminating these substances
has widely been regarded as the next logical step in the
evolution of the Montreal Protocol process.
What took everyone by surprise is how quickly events unfolded.
Many said that the issue came to the fore very quickly, perhaps
too quickly. Even veteran observers of the process said they had
not expected a decision before MOP21, and were astonished at the
rapid pace of progress in the discussions. When the idea of
accelerated phaseout was first raised six years ago, it had met
strong opposition by key players, and until earlier this year no
one had expected a decision was possible at this stage. Some
delegations even admitted that they were not fully prepared to
engage in in-depth negotiations at this meeting, and may have
some explaining to do back home.
Various conducive factors converged to facilitate rapid progress.
China, the biggest country producer of HCFCs and main opponent of
accelerating the phase-out showed far more flexibility than
anyone expected. Another important player, while not supporting
acceleration, decided not to oppose it actively either and
discretely withdrew from the discussion in the middle of the
week. Rumour had it that their president’s signature on a recent
G-8 declaration had tied the delegation’s hands on the issue.
Among the remaining players, various country interests converged
to work favourably in the same direction. Industrialized
countries stressed the high global warming potential of HCFCs and
the climate benefits of their elimination. Developing countries
saw new stronger commitments as a mechanism for increasing
financial resources available through the multilateral fund. They
insisted on a “total package” involving agreements on HCFCs,
increased Fund contributions and access to alternatives. They
stuck to their guns on linking these issues, and succeeded in
securing a commitment to stable and sufficient funding. For
everyone involved, accelerating the phase-out was also necessary
for maintaining stable levels of funding in the multilateral
fund. Insiders openly discussed the financial reasons to seek
acceleration: with 95 percent of other ODSs successfully
eliminated, the Fund had been drying up, and new policy
commitments were seen as a way to ensure continued funding. More
fundamentally, the successful implementation of the treaty had
created a paradoxical problem: with most of the goals achieved,
the process faced the prospect of having nothing left to do, and
in need of a reason to live. These diverse factors thrust a
powerful tail wind in the sails that propelled the negotiations
forward.
TILLING NEW FIELDS: CLIMATE CHANGE
One major country displayed particular enthusiasm about taking
climate-related action outside of the climate process.
Reportedly, their delegation had “marching orders” to bring
climate into the ozone process before an upcoming high-level
meeting on climate change next week, and thus draw attention away
from the UNFCCC.
TAKING STOCK: SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES
The outcome was what delegates referred to as a “historic
agreement” to accelerate the HCFC phaseout. This agreement opens
a new chapter in the life of the Montreal Protocol. The new
policy commitments strengthen the fight to protect the ozone
layer, give the Montreal Protocol process a new raison d’etre,
and ensure “the sustainability of funding” by providing new
justification for fund replenishment. Politically, the new
agreement may take attention away from the ongoing issues of
methyl bromide use and illegal trade problems, and reduce the
pressure on key offenders in those regards. It also provides an
easy way to take action on climate change and shift the focus
away from the Kyoto Protocol.
The new HCFC agreement is yet another gem in a crown that is
already resplendent. Clearly, the Montreal Protocol process has
much to boast. It enjoys broad active participation, with most of
the countries in the world being parties to the treaty. The
Protocol and its amendments are ambitious policy instruments and
stipulate stringent regulations of many substances. The
implementation of these policies has been strong, and as many
pointed out, ninety-five percent of ODSs have been eliminated.
The new agreement helps the process remain on the pedestal of
global environmental politics.
Still, problems remain and further challenges lie
ahead. Illegal trade of ODSs remains the weak spot of ozone
policy, and curbing the black markets will continue to be a
struggle. One NGO speaker publicly accused his government for
supplying the black markets. Methyl bromide also remains a
contentious issue. In Montreal, much energy was spent debating
how to measure stocks. A regional group kept challenging partners
to match its own achievements in phasing out MB, and succeeded in
gaining additional ground. The fact that a heavy-handed player
yielded to the pressure and accepted to reduce its methyl bromide
quantities for critical use exemptions could be taken as an
indication that a complete phaseout is a matter of time.
The eventual phaseout of HCFCs may have unexpected and undesirable
consequences, given that the negative impacts of HCFC
alternatives are of concern. Environmental NGOs stressed that one
alternative in particular, HFCs, have a global warming potential
far greater than HCFCs and reliance on them may create more
problems than it solves. Developing countries appeared to be most
concerned with possible negative impacts of alternatives and
persistently called for studies on the matter. After all, HCFCs
that are now headed to the guillotine were introduced as a
solution to the CFCs problem. The logical question is whether the
next solution will also become the next problem? Accelerating the
phaseout at MOP19 is undoubtedly a notable achievement. Yet, the
choice of particular substitutes and policy instruments used to
implement it will be of equal importance.
The ultimate weakness of the process is that, despite all
political successes in international cooperation, the ecological
problem of ozone depletion has not been solved. As the scientific
presentations during the meeting revealed, current stratospheric
ozone levels remain low, the Antarctic hole is at its worst, and
skin cancer cases are expected to multiply several times in the
next decade. The international policy process established to
restore the ecological balance remains accountable for the end
results and those are ultimately measured in ecosystem and public
health.
On 24-Sep-07, at 11:10 AM, Wil Burns wrote:
You're quite right, Sam. However, what the faster phaseout does
do is,
potentially, buy us some time in terms of when atmospheric
concentration of
greenhouse gases would reach the point where forcings would push
us past the
2C threshold that everyone acknowledges as particularly
foreboding, and at
which point some of the non-linear forcings may occur. Such is
our lot in
life where that's the extent of the good news, but perhaps in the
interim
technological change, peak oil and political impetus can
transform climate
policy before the worse potential impacts of climate change are
visited on
us, and perhaps more importantly, the world's most vulnerable
populations.
wil
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Samuel Barkin
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:30 AM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: HCFCs and Kyoto
A thought on the new Montreal Protocol/HCFC agreement and climate
change, following up on the several emails on GEPED on the topic
yesterday. Various commentators have argued that this agreement does
anywhere from twice to five times as much for climate change as does
Kyoto. And this may well be the case for some periods of time in
between
the new baseline year and the old phase-out date of 2040. But in the
long term, it strikes me that the new HCFC agreement does not do all
that much for climate change. The parties to the agreement had all
already agreed to a phaseout - this agreement moves the dates
forward by
a decade. But a decade in climatological terms isn't all that much.
After 2040, this agreement makes no difference at all to climate
change.
Kyoto, on the other hand, was about setting new emissions levels,
not
changing the schedule for emissions levels already agreed to. As
such,
its achievements (however modest) could be expected to alter long-
term
behavior by setting new baselines for expectations. As such, it
strikes
me that comparisons of the climate-change effects of the two
agreements
are misplaced, in that the HCFC agreement does not have new long-
term
ameliorative effects on climate change. Thoughts?
Sam Barkin
Samuel Barkin
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Florida
