Awards Book - Ozone Secretariat - UNEP

Montreal Protocol 

on Substances that Deplete 

the Ozone Layer 

‘‘Celebrating 20 years of progress in 2007’’ 

Awards Book 

Ozone Secretariat 

United Nations Environment Programme

Twentieth Anniversary Ozone Protection Awards 

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was agreed on 

16 September 1987. Since that time, there has been an enormous and highly successful global 

effort to eliminate ozone-depleting substances. By the end of 2005, production and 

consumption of ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol had been 

reduced by over 95 per cent from historic levels and the scientific community can now detect 

a decrease in both atmospheric and stratospheric measurements of these chemicals. 

Addressing ozone depletion is expected to prevent millions of cancer cases and even more 

cases of cataracts. As a result of this significant action to protect the global environment, the 

Montreal Protocol is widely acknowledged as one of the most successful multilateral 

environmental agreements ever negotiated. 

It is often said that success has a thousand parents – that is, wherever there is success, many 

people are responsible for it. In the case of the Montreal Protocol, literally hundreds of 

millions of people around the world can and should take credit for the success that has been 

achieved to date. Those people include the millions of consumers globally that have done 

such things as purchase a product because it displayed an “ozone friendly” label or made 

sure that their air conditioning technician was using an ozone friendly substance or refused to 

buy a product containing or made with ozone-depleting substances. It takes environmentally 

conscious people such as these to make an international agreement effective. 

It also takes thoughtful experts from Governments, academia, business and civil society, who 

are committed to promoting, developing and implementing ideas and technologies to address 

the environment. It is a subset of this latter group of global champions, who have been 

working with missionary zeal, that are listed in this awards booklet and who the United 

Nations Environment Programme and the Parties to the Montreal Protocol are celebrating on 

the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. 

It should be understood that these awards only constitute a token recognition for the 

outstanding work that has been done, both by those receiving them and the hundreds of 

millions of unsung heroes who continue to make the Montreal Protocol a success. 

Montreal Protocol 20th Anniversary Awards i

Montreal Protocol Visionaries Awards 

Montreal Protocol 20th Anniversary Awards 1

Montreal Protocol Visionaries Awards 

Recognizing extraordinary contributions to the creation of the infrastructure of the Montreal 

Protocol or its Multilateral Fund 

Mr. Stephen O. Andersen has devoted a great deal of his tireless energies over the last 20 

years to the Montreal Protocol and the cause of ozone layer protection. Through his work as a 

co-chair of the Protocol’s Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), he has had a 

significant impact on the development and evolution of the Protocol and its control 

provisions. In addition, his works outside of Panel are legion and include the creation of 

ozone champions around the world and assisting countless countries and firms by 

demonstrating the viability of alternatives. 

Mr. G. Victor Buxton has combined the knowledge of a technician with the skills of a 

negotiator and played a vital role in mobilizing Governments to move beyond the Vienna 

Convention to support a binding treaty to phase out ozone-depleting substances. His initial 

work as a co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, chair of the 

Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and representative of 

Canada enabled him to negotiate the Protocol and its early amendments with authority; his 

subsequent work on ozone issues has contributed further to the Protocol’s evolution. 

Ms. Eileen Claussen played a vital role, both domestically and internationally, in developing 

and negotiating the provisions of the Montreal Protocol and the amendments and adjustments 

agreed by the Protocol Parties in 1990 and 1992. Her steadfast, apolitical support for the 

Multilateral Fund ensured its vitality during its formative years. 

Mr. Omar E. El-Arini began his job as Chief Officer of the Multilateral Fund secretariat, 

with an office, a typewriter and the bare outline of the Parties’ intent to establish a Fund to 

enable developing countries to comply with the provisions of the Protocol. He also had a 

vision of a world free of ozone depletion. Such a vision was turned into commitment by the 

staff of the Fund Secretariat who assiduously endeavored to achieve the highest professional 

standards. His integrity and perseverance facilitated the establishment of a funding 

mechanism, which is recognized today as the most successful environmental fund ever 

created. 


Mr. Paul S. Horwitz served as the first Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat and an active 

delegate, president or chair at meetings of the Parties and the Executive Committee. He 

envisioned and negotiated several Protocol and Multilateral Fund innovations including the 

Protocol’s global licensing requirement and the Multilateral Fund frameworks for the closure 

of ozone-depleting substance producers, which ensured that Fund projects yielded net 

reductions in consumption. He was also responsible for the regionalization of the United 

Nations Environment Program (UNEP) OzonAction programme, which enables direct 

assistance to developing countries. 

Ms. Ingrid Kökeritz has been a tenacious and tireless advocate for taking the strongest steps 

possible to protect the ozone layer. Her vision can be seen in several areas of the Protocol, 

including in the development of the Protocol’s unique concept of consumption and the 

system of regional networks that has enabled valuable peer learning and South-South and 

North-South information transfer among Parties. 

Mr. Lambert Kuijpers was working on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances even 

before the Montreal Protocol was negotiated and his decision to leave the private sector in 

order to spend his time on Protocol matters has truly benefited both the development of the 

Protocol and the Parties themselves. His leadership on the Protocol’s Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel, including his visionary work on a framework for evaluating 

replenishments of the Multilateral Fund, has enabled the Parties to the Protocol to take fully 

informed decisions within the context of the global effort to protect the ozone layer. 

Mr. Juan Antonio Mateos played a vital role in envisioning and negotiating the terms of the 

Protocol relating to the landmark establishment of the Protocol’s Multilateral Fund. As a 

co-chair of the Parties’ negotiating forum on assistance for developing countries and the 

second chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund, he played a fundamental 

role in setting the Multilateral Fund on the non-political, highly supportive footing that has 

prevailed throughout its history. 

Mr. K. Madhava Sarma will always have a special place in the heart of the Parties to the 

Protocol, having served as the first Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat and leading 

the Protocol through its growth years from 1991 to 2000. During that time he oversaw the 

process that enabled the Parties to negotiate a virtual phase-out of almost all substances 

controlled under the Montreal Protocol. 

Mr. Patrick Széll was significantly responsible for the development of the language that 

took the ideas of the negotiators and crafted them into the Protocol text that we see today. He 

also played a significant role in crafting the Protocol’s non-compliance procedure, which has 

proven highly effective in bringing Parties with problems back into compliance. Through his 

vision and his leadership of the Protocol’s legal drafting group, he has had a significant and 

enduring impact on the Protocol. 

Montreal Protocol 20th Anniversary Awards

Mr. Mostafa K. Tolba While it is often said that success has a thousand parents, few if any 

in the global community would dispute the singular role played by Mr. Mostafa Tolba in the 

creation of the Protocol. For that reason, he has certainly earned the moniker of “father of the 

Montreal Protocol”. His knowledge as a scientist, his skills as a negotiator, and his techniques 

of persuasion have enabled him to bring people together to achieve what was thought to be 

unachievable. Without these skills and, most important, this vision, it is doubtful that we 

would be celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Protocol in 2007 or the progress made 

to date. 


Outstanding Contributors Awards 


Outstanding Contributors Awards 

Recognizing the extraordinary contributions of those who have taken the vision of the 

founders and advanced it to address current issues 

Mr. Oladapo A. Afolabi has, for the past decade, helped the Protocol Parties in a number of 

different capacities, including as chair of the Executive Committee and spokesperson for the 

developing countries during discussions on replenishment. His optimism and easy 

temperament have enabled the Parties to reach consensus, even at times when it seemed out 

of reach. 

Mr. Husamuddin Ahmadzai has been a strong Protocol delegate for over a decade, serving, 

among other things, as a co-chair of the first TEAP task force on process agents and as a 

focal point for discussions on carbon tetrachloride. Most recently, his active role in the 

revitalization of the “Stockholm group” has helped enable the Parties to give thorough 

consideration to a possible acceleration of controls on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). 

Mr. Per Menzony Bakken was an active participant in the negotiations that led to the 

creation of the Montreal Protocol. As a representative of Norway, his efforts helped bring the 

countries negotiating the Protocol to consensus. Later, as a manager of the UNEP Division 

of Technology, Industry and Economics, he helped implement the Executive Committee’s 

policy on regionalization and creation of the compliance assistance programme. 

Ms. Suely Machado Carvalho has served the cause of ozone layer protection in many 

capacities. Her initial work as a government official in Sao Paulo helped sensitize her country 

to the ozone depletion issue. Her subsequent work as a delegate at meetings of the Parties, a 

co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and as head of the United 

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ozone team have enabled her to assist virtually 

the entire globe in its ozone protection efforts. 

Mr. Milton Catelin has served the Protocol in a large number of capacities, including as an 

active delegate at meetings of the Parties, the Implementation Committee for the Montreal 

Protocol and the Executive Committee, and as an innovative national implementer. His 

leadership in his roles as three-time co-chair of the Open-ended Working Group and president 

of the Meeting of the Parties enabled the Parties to address a number of key issues in a 

considered manner. 


Mr. Steve Gorman has been working on ozone issues since the late 1980s, doing 

outstanding work in a variety of capacities, including as an active representative of Canada, 

network coordinator for UNEP and chief of the World Bank’s Montreal Protocol unit. His 

vision in finding innovative modalities for implementation and his tireless efforts and 

outstanding work have helped many countries achieve compliance with the Montreal 

Protocol. 

Mr. Maas Goote has successfully taken on particularly difficult tasks, including addressing 

the assessment panels’ treatment of methyl bromide critical-use exemptions and the Parties’ 

consideration of HCFCs. As president of the Implementation Committee, his focused legal 

mind and firm but even-handed approach have helped facilitate agreement on numerous 

initiatives to enhance the transparency and efficiency of the Committee’s work. 

Mr. Blaise Horisberger has been an indefatigable representative of Switzerland for over 15 

years. During that time, he has been instrumental in pushing the Protocol Parties to achieve 

the maximum possible ozone layer benefits, helping developing countries in the area of 

refrigeration and ensuring maximum consideration of the use of natural alternatives. 

Mr. Khaled Klaly has been a leader in ozone layer protection for over a decade. As a 

representative of Syria at both meetings of the Parties and the Executive Committee he has 

been a steadfast supporter of the interests of ozone protection in general and developing 

countries in particular. He has also served the Parties as chair of the Executive Committee 

and co-chair of both the Open-ended Working Group and the Dialogue on the Future of the 

Montreal Protocol. 

Mr. Janusz Kozakiewicz has served as a steadfast ozone officer and representative of 

Poland, co-chair of the Open-ended Working Group and member of the Implementation 

Committee. The Parties have benefited greatly from his focus on such issues as trade in 

ozone-depleting substances and enforcement of the Montreal Protocol. 

Mr. Tom Land has served the Protocol Parties for over a decade as co-chair of the 

Open-ended Working Group, president of the Implementation Committee and of the Meeting 

of the Parties, co-chair of the Dialogue on the Future of the Montreal Protocol and an active 

delegate at meetings of the Parties and of the Executive Committee. The Parties have 

benefited from his leadership and his work in moving the Implementation Committee 

towards standardization and helping develop a simpler reporting format. 


Ms. Marcia Levaggi has been a vital presence at Protocol meetings for many years. Her 

insights and leadership have combined to enable her to perform outstandingly in a number 

of roles, including as a national representative, a member of the Implementation Committee, 

chair of the Executive Committee and the Experts Meeting on Ozone and Climate, and 

co-chair of the Open-ended Working Group. 

Mr. Liu Yi was head of China’s National Ozone Unit and a valued member of the Executive 

Committee of the Multilateral Fund for over a decade. During that time, in his work for 

China, he helped develop and negotiate through the Multilateral Fund the first sector plan, the 

first production sector closure and the first plan to enable an accelerated phase-out of 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. His visionary work has benefited not only China but 

also the ozone layer and the global community. 

Mr. Pierre Pinault has been a valuable asset to the Parties. His knowledge, even-handedness 

and abilities as a negotiator and leader have led to his selection to head contact groups and to 

bring Parties to consensus on many of the Protocol’s hardest issues. His latest efforts, which 

have enabled the Parties to get a head start in considering future issues, will pay dividends to 

the Parties for many years to come. 

Mr. Rajendra Shende has worked tirelessly for almost 15 years for UNEP and the cause 

of ozone protection. His management of the OzonAction group has enabled UNEP to play a 

central role in building the capacity of Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol and 

enabling them to comply with the Protocol. 

Mr. Sidi Menad Si-Ahmed has been an active participant in efforts to combat ozone 

depletion since before the Protocol’s negotiation. As a representative of Algeria, who was 

also active on the Executive Committee, and then as a member and then head of the United 

Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Montreal Protocol team, his work 

has contributed to the compliance of a large number of developing countries with the 

Protocol. 

Mr. Klaus Töpfer has contributed to the Montreal Protocol in his role as Germany’s 

Minister of the Environment and as Executive Director of UNEP from 1998 to 2006. During 

that time, his steadfast support for the Multilateral Fund, the Ozone Secretariat and the ozone 

treaties helped facilitate the firm institutionalization of those key bodies and move forward 

the implementation of those treaties. 

Mr. Jukka Uosukainen has served the Protocol Parties in a variety of capacities, including 

as co-chair of the Open-ended Working group and of several negotiating groups, including 

those dealing with the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund, and as a strong and creative 

representative of Finland. 


Implementers Awards 


Implementers Awards 

Recognizing extraordinary contributions by national ozone units or individuals, whose hard 

work at the country level has helped to make the Protocol’s phase-out goals a reality 

Mr. Ghazi Faleh Alodat has been a long-standing ozone officer and delegate and a driving 

force for implementation of the Protocol both in Jordan and across his region. His work has 

enabled his country to achieve reductions in the use of ozone-depleting substances, many 

ahead of Protocol schedules. 

Argentina: Oficina Programa Ozono has played a vital role in the national ozone 

phase-out programme, which is a model of close coordination between industry, universities 

and research centres. Its achievements have placed Argentina’s implementation ahead of the 

Protocol control schedules. 

Mr. Adiyasuren Tsokhio Borjigdkhan has served as head of the national ozone unit of 

Mongolia. In that role he has implemented several important projects and policies, worked 

effectively in awareness-raising and helped his country achieve a 90 per cent reduction in its 

consumption of ozone-depleting substances. 

Mr. Tom Batchelor has worked tirelessly as a key member of the European Commission 

ozone team to create and oversee the development and implementation of aggressive ozone 

reduction policies to address cutting-edge issues such as halon banks, used refrigerators, 

destruction of CFC foams, and HCFCs. Beyond his national work, his efforts to reach out and 

assist developing countries have earned him the thanks and admiration of many Parties. 

Brazil’s National Ozone Unit has carried forward the country’s proactive ozone protection 

policies in an exemplary manner, ensuring early termination of CFC production and the 

development and active enforcement of stringent legislation to control imports and exports. 

Mr. Jozef Buys has been an active delegate and member of the Executive Committee for 

almost a decade. His work on the Executive Committee, on replenishments of the 

Multilateral Fund and on the Secretariat’s budget, has enabled more effective implementation 

of the Protocol. 


Mr. Philippe Chemouny has served the Parties to the Protocol in a number of capacities 

including as chair of the Executive Committee and representative of Canada. His work as the 

manager of a robust bilateral programme under the Multilateral Fund and his support for the 

implementation of developing country projects and policies have earned him the thanks and 

admiration of many Protocol Parties. 

China’s General Administration of Customs is being recognized for its efforts to address 

illegal trade and, in particular, its development and championing of the informal prior 

informed consent programme, which is helping all countries in the region to address the issue 

of illegal trade. 

China’s State Environmental Protection Administration has ensured effective 

implementation of China’s enormous national effort to achieve an accelerated elimination of 

most ozone-depleting substances. Its pioneering work on sector plans has enabled both China 

and other countries to take control of their work and achieve significant, low cost reductions. 

Mr. Corrado Clini has played a longstanding role working for effective implementation of 

the Protocol. His work on halon banks, mobilization of support for the Multilateral Fund and 

efforts to address methyl bromide effectively are just a few examples of his leadership. 

Colombia: Unidad Técnica Ozono has been extremely effective in implementing the 

Party’s obligations under the Protocol. Its sector-based work and public awareness activities, 

as well as its support for activities throughout the region, are very well known. 

Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ CFC Committee, Japan, has worked 

effectively to develop, promote and implement alternatives to CFCs in metered-dose inhalers 

and to enable Japan to achieve a smooth phase-out in this sector, which is critical to public 

health. 

Guinea’s National Ozone Unit has been very effective in implementing the Party’s 

obligations under the Protocol and has played a very positive role in helping other countries 

within the French-speaking African region. 

Mr. Zahid Ullah Hamdard of Afghanistan has demonstrated that a relatively new ozone 

officer can make a huge impact on national implementation. His quick work in the 

development and passage of regulations and legislation has allowed this newly ratifying 

country to achieve quick compliance in the face of significant barriers. 


Mr. Hassen Hannachi has been perhaps the longest serving ozone officer among all national 

ozone units. He performed superbly as president of the Implementation Committee. His 

leadership, both in his country and within his region, has enabled Tunisia to become a key 

example of effective implementation of the Montreal Protocol. 

Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Institute, Canada, helped design and 

deliver training on good practices to more than 1 2,000 technicians in Canada and helped 

develop training programmes for many Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol. 

Mr. John S. Hoffman was one of the earliest advocates in the United States of America for 

strong controls on CFCs and played a vital technical and facilitating role in early efforts to 

bring countries to the consensus that resulted in the adoption of the Montreal Protocol. 

Mr. Jiri Hlavacek has been a very active contributor to the work of the Protocol for nearly 

a decade and has supported its implementation through his role as an active representative at 

meetings of the Parties, the Executive Committee, and the Implementation Committee. His 

vision and diplomatic skills have greatly assisted the smooth implementation of the Protocol. 

Ms. Drusilla Hufford has managed the ozone programme of the United States of America 

for well over a decade. In that role, she has played a key part in developing the innovative 

SunWise Program and the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, the latter of which is 

used by many countries to facilitate the consideration of alternatives. 

India’s Ozone Cell has been one of the strongest and most effective national implementing 

institutions under the Protocol. It has worked creatively and proactively to develop a policy 

structure and projects to ensure continued compliance with the Protocol. 

Mr. Tadanori Inomata has served in a number of different roles that have enabled him to 

effect implementation of the Protocol, including as an active delegate, chair of the Executive 

Committee’s subcommittees, and chair and vice-chair of the Executive Committee. His focus 

on issues such as destruction and the use of loans have made a positive contribution to the 

Protocol. 

Mr. Marin Kocov is one of the most senior and experienced ozone officers in his region. 

His work in implementing policies, projects and public awareness activities, and sharing this 

expertise and experience with his regional counterparts has enabled the former Yugoslav 

Republic of Macedonia to achieve a 97 per cent reduction in ozone-depleting substance use 

and enhanced the ozone protection efforts of the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region. 


Lebanon’s National Ozone Unit has continuously been a leader in the development and 

implementation of innovative ozone-depleting substance reduction and public awareness 

strategies to enable effective implementation of the Protocol. 

Malawi’s National Ozone Unit is being recognized for, among other things, its outstanding 

work in innovatively and effectively introducing alternatives to methyl bromide in the face of 

determined opposition. 

Nepal’s National Ozone Unit has been active in pursing compliance with the Protocol and 

in developing creative mechanisms to address non-compliance. The Unit’s work in training 

and support for other countries in the region is also exemplary. 

Mauritius’ National Ozone Unit has consistently been at the vanguard in taking effective 

measures to protect the ozone layer. Mauritius was one of the first countries to put in place a 

licensing system and achieve a virtual phase out of CFCs. 

Mr. Emmanuel Osae-Quansah has overseen the development and implementation of a host 

of highly successful initiatives. These include his work on an educational outreach 

programme and implementation of a unique end-user incentive programme. 

Refrigerant Reclaim Australia is an industry-funded environmental trust that was 

established to recover, reclaim and destroy ozone-depleting refrigerants. Its innovative 

collection system has enabled the recovery of over 1,600 tonnes of contaminated and 

unwanted ozone-depleting substances. 

Mr. Agustín Sánchez has been a very effective both as a representative of Mexico at 

meetings of the Parties and as an ozone officer domestically. He has contributed both to 

global understanding of ozone science and effective national implementation of Protocol. 

Mr. Stephen Seidel was instrumental in drafting the regulations that implemented the first 

national phase-out of CFCs used in non-essential aerosols. He also played a vital role in 

developing the framework that enabled a smooth phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in 

the United States of America. 

Mr. Dunstan Sorhaindo (deceased) came into his position at a time of rapidly increasing 

consumption of ozone-depleting substances and worked quickly to oversee the development 

and implementation of projects to ensure national compliance. The Protocol family will miss 

the work of this ozone champion. 


Spain’s Methyl Bromide Alternatives Project brought together champions from many 

organizations in Spain to test alternatives and spread the results in a manner that has enabled 

Spain to make significant strides towards elimination of the use of methyl bromide. 

Mr. Miroslav Spasojevic is being recognized for his outstanding efforts at implementing 

the Montreal Protocol. His work extends beyond efforts in his country and he has provided 

significant support to other countries within his region. 

Sri Lanka’s National Ozone Unit is known globally for many of its contributions to efforts 

to address ozone-depleting substances, including its effective implementation projects to 

enable achievement of the Protocol’s reduction requirements, its effective licensing 

programme, and its creative public awareness activities. 

Ms. Somsri Suwanjaras has played a leading role in restructuring the Thai phase-out 

effort to combine projects with strong policy and regulatory support. Her skill in working 

with other Thai agencies ensured the necessary government engagement in the Thai 

phase-out of CFCs. 

Mr. Geoffrey Tierney has contributed significantly to the implementation of the Protocol 

through his effective work in both the United Kingdom and the European Commission, his 

effective advocacy in meetings of the Parties and the Executive Committee, and his 

assistance to Parties as coordinator of the UNEP OzonAction regional network system. 

Trinidad and Tobago’s National Ozone Unit has always been at the forefront of ozone 

layer protection, having put in place a system for permitting the use of ozone-depleting 

substances and equipment dependent on such substances and by implementing an accelerated 

phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. 

Mr. Mikheil Tushishvili has served as president of the Implementation Committee and as 

an active delegate to meetings of the Parties. He has also served as a driving force within the 

Eastern Europe and Central Asia network, offering implementation assistance to all. 

Mr. Bishnunarine Tulsie was a founding member of the Caribbean Ozone Network and has 

played a significant role in the implementation of the Protocol, both within his country and 

region and through his work on the Executive Committee and his leadership in the review of 

the non-compliance procedures. 


Innovators Awards 


Innovators Awards 

Recognizing the extraordinary contribution of those whose work has facilitated the 

widespread use of alternatives or alternative technologies that enabled the phase-out of 

ozone-depleting substances 

Australia’s Department of Primary Industries Methyl Bromide Research Team, 

consisting of Scott Mattner, Ross Mann, Robyn Brett, Alan Shanks, Natalie Tostovrsnik, 

Rajendra Gounder, Leanne Trinder, Stefan Smith, Debra Partington, Murray Hannah, Ian 

Porter, has done outstanding work in evaluating alternatives and supporting Australia’s 

efforts to phase out methyl bromide. 

Dow AgroSciences LLC has provided global leadership in the development and registration 

of alternatives to methyl bromide, as well as designing novel application technologies and 

product stewardship requirements that have enabled the effective use of alternatives. 

Mr. Brian Ellis has identified alternatives to ozone-depleting substance for specialized 

cleaning purposes. He has also used his expertise to help Parties through his active assistance 

to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and his work on a host of Multilateral 

Fund projects. 

Mr. Fusao Kawakami of Japan is a globally known technical expert in fumigation 

alternatives to methyl bromide. His development of a range of carbon dioxide treatments for 

fumigating stored products has enabled significant reductions in methyl bromide use. 

Mr. James B. Kerr, Mr. Tom McElroy, and Mr. David Wardle constitute the scientific 

team from Environment Canada that developed the Brewer spectrometer, a devise used 

globally to monitor ozone concentrations. They were also instrumental in developing 

Canada’s ultraviolet index programme. 

Mr. Steven J. McCormick is recognized as a world leader in the development of halon 

substitutes. He has developed non-halon systems for military vehicles worldwide, enabling 

significant reductions in halon use. 


Mr. David Mueller and Mr. John Mueller have consistently demonstrated leadership in the 

development and promotion of alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in the post-harvest 

sector. Their work has benefited many countries around the world and enabled significant 

reductions in this key sector. 

United States Environment Protection Agency’s Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program has enabled a comprehensive analysis of the potential risk of alternatives, which 

has helped many countries make informed decisions on such substances. 



Public Awareness Awards 


Montreal Protocol Public Awareness Awards 

For outstanding work in raising awareness about ozone depletion and the global effort to 

address it. 

Air India has used its relationship with flyers to distribute information on ozone layer 

protection. Their assistance has included the screening of the “Ozzy Ozone” cartoon on their 

flights, reproduction and distribution of an “Ozzy Ozone” colouring book, and discussion of 

the issue of ozone protection in their in-flight magazine. 

Bank of Maharashtra in India has made hundreds of thousands of clients aware of the need 

to protect the ozone layer through its innovative ozone day promotions that include 

distribution of “Ozzy Ozone” material and information on steps that people can take to 

protect the ozone layer, and placement of advertisements with ozone protection messages. 

Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympics has demonstrated a high level of 

commitment to using the preparations for the Olympic Games in 2008 to promote ozone 

layer protection and the use of ozone friendly equipment. 

Mr. Richard E. Benedick has made the Montreal Protocol and its negotiation process 

understandable for millions of readers of his books and publications and has enabled 

others to benefit from the experience gained in implementing the Protocol and to consider the 

usefulness of its precedents in other vital areas. He also made a valuable contribution to the 

negotiation of the Treaty. 

Cancer Council, Australia, pioneered a highly successful “Slip, Slop, Slap” campaign to 

focus the Australian public on measures that they could take to reduce exposure to ultraviolet 

radiation. The programme, which has been adopted in other countries, helped protect the 

public and raise awareness of ozone depletion. 

Earth Negotiations Bulletin has kept the world community informed of the work of the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Its informative reviews also enable experts working in the 

context of other multilateral environmental agreements to understand the unique initiatives 

being undertaken under the Montreal Protocol. As a consequence, it has helped promote 

synergies among related institutions. 


Niger’s National Ozone Unit has done outstanding work in awareness-raising, which has 

helped facilitate compliance with the Montreal Protocol. 

Ozonehole.com is a valuable educational resource, which provides an in-depth compilation 

of information concerning ozone depletion. Clear information, diagrams and descriptions 

make the site and the issue of ozone depletion highly accessible to a wide range of users. 

Save the Ozone, Nigeria, and its Director, Mr. Ozaveshe Ade Balogun, have done 

outstanding awareness raising work on ozone depletion ozone friendly alternatives. Their 

work has included data collection, analysis and dissemination, publication of a quarterly 

newsletter, and membership on the National Advisory Ozone Committee. 

Save the Ozone Network, Japan, played a key role in raising public awareness nationally. 

Its activities, including its development of education materials and its Ozone Kids Camp, 

have helped keep a spotlight on ozone and the Montreal Protocol. 

United States Environment Protection Agency’s SunWise Program has developed a 

free health and education programme for grades K to 8. The programme has registered over 

19,000 educators across the country to use the programme, which is designed to teach 

children about ozone depletion and sun protection and thereby reduce children’s risk of skin 

cancer. 


Partners Awards 


Partners Awards 

Recognizing the work of civil society and international organizations that have played a 

critical role in the development or implementation of the Montreal ProtocolAlliance for 

Responsible Atmospheric Policy has been a long-term partner of many Parties, supporting 

efforts at global education, responsible use of alternatives, and stemming the flow of illegal 

trade. 

CABI has used its expertise in science and the environment to help many countries achieve 

significant reductions in methyl bromide. 

Canadian Government has been steadfast in its support as host of the Multilateral Fund 

Secretariat, the ninth and nineteenth meetings of the Parties, countless meetings of the 

Open-ended Working Group, and significant contributions in the areas of policy and 

monitoring. 

Electrical Manufacturers’ Association, Japan has played a significant role in the phase-out 

of ozone-depleting substances, not only in Japan, but also through their work in many Parties 

operating under Article 5. 

Environmental Investigation Agency has supported the Protocol in a significant fashion 

since it turned its attention to the issue of illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances. Its 

incisive reports and informative presentations have enabled the Parties to consider the issue, 

which is of key importance to many Parties, in a thoughtful manner. 

Global Environment Facility has been a key Montreal Protocol partner. It has played an 

essential role in supporting projects in countries with economies in transition and thereby 

enabling their compliance. 

Green Customs Initiative and the Parties to the Montreal Protocol have participated in a 

partnership that has benefited both the Protocol and several other multilateral environmental 

agreements in their efforts to track trade in items of interest. 


Greenpeace International has been an innovative and articulate force in ozone layer 

protection since the inception of the Protocol. From its work on the green fridge to its 

advocacy for speedy action, it has enabled the Protocol Parties to think more broadly. The 

significant contributions of Mr. John Mate deserve particular mention. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been a valuable partner in advancing 

the safeguarding of the ozone layer and the global climate system. Its joint work with the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel has provided balanced scientific, technical and 

policy-relevant information to the Parties of both the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol. 

International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium has contributed significantly to the 

deliberations of both the Medical Technical Options Committee and the Parties’ discussions 

on the key issue of ensuring a safe transition from the use of CFC metered-dose inhalers. 

Natural Resources Defense Council has been a long-term and steadfast advocate for the 

Montreal Protocol and has made strong efforts to phase out ozone-depleting substances. The 

significant contributions of Mr. David D. Doniger to the global debate deserve particular 

mention. 

ODS Management Partnership brought together the Netherlands Ministry of Defence, 

Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment, and Halon Bank Association; the 

Australian Department of Defence, Department of Environment and Water Resources, and 

Environment Protection Authority of Victoria; and the United States Department of Defense, 

Defense Logistics Agency, and Environmental Protection Agency. The Partnership worked to 

facilitate the effective collection and banking of halons for critical civilian and military uses. 

Ozone Operation Resource Group was established to help review Multilateral Fund 

projects for the World Bank but its insightful status reports on the state of technology and 

in-depth reviews helped many Parties. 

Stockholm Environment Institute has contributed its expertise and time to help advance the 

phase-out of ozone-depleting substances by working on projects in a number of 

developing countries. 

World Customs Organization has been a real partner to the Protocol in providing critical 

support to enable accurate monitoring of trade in ozone-depleting substances through their 

adaptation of customs codes to address ozone-depleting substances. Their regional 

intelligence liaison offices have also proven immensely important to efforts to address illegal 

trade. 


World Meteorological Organization has been an indispensable partner to the Montreal 

Protocol’s effort in the areas of science and monitoring. Its valuable contributions have 

resulted in a productive synergy within the United Nations framework. 


Implementing Agencies Awards 


Implementing Agency Awards 

The Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol has, over the last 

17 years, approved over 5500 projects and activities in over 1 0 developing countries. The 

development and implementation of the vast majority of this work has been undertaken by 

a large group of highly processional, highly dedicated international civil servants. For these 

individuals, protection of the ozone layer has been more than a job and they have worked 

tirelessly to assist developing countries in the elimination of ozone-depleting substances. 

Accordingly, this award is being given to all of the individuals and entities listed below. 

In recognition of extraordinary assistance to developing countries in the global effort to phase 

out ozone-depleting substances and protect the ozone layer 

UNEP OzonAction Programme 

United Nations Development Programme 

Implementing Agencies 

United Nations Industrial Development Organization 

The World Bank 

Implementing Agencies’ Staff 

Mr. Abdulelah Alwadaee has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme for 

the last five years as Regional Network Coordinator for the West Asia Region, assisting 12 

countries in the region, introducing ozone activities to the Gulf Cooperation Council and the 

League of Arab States, and collaborating with non-Parties, such as Iraq and the Occupied 

Palestinian Territory. 

Mr. Atul Bagai has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme since 2000, 

serving for the last five years as Regional Network Coordinator for South Asia, assisting the 

compliance of 12 countries. With enthusiastic commitment, he has developed innovative 

mechanisms, such as the “Sky Hole Patching” project and projects to prevent illegal trade. 


Mr. Jérémy Boubié Bazyé has been with the UNEP OzonAction Programme for over 10 

years as Regional Network Coordinator for the French-speaking African region. He has 

assisted the 27 countries of the region in putting the issue of ozone protection in their 

national development agendas and has contributed to the harmonization of regional trade 

regulations. 

Ms. Fabian C. Bonaparte, worked for six years as Finance Associate for the UNDP 

Montreal Protocol Unit, providing sound financial oversight and timely reporting to the 

Multilateral Fund and using her experience and solid finance background to improve delivery 

and bring solutions to portfolio-related matters. 

Ms. Suely Machado Carvalho joined UNDP in 1997 and has since expanded the UNDP 

Latin America portfolio and brought Multilateral Fund assistance to address methyl 

bromide and medical aerosol sector challenges in that region. With great networking skills 

and supported by effective partnerships that she has forged worldwide, she has successfully 

led the UNDP Montreal Protocol Unit since 2002, working with 90 developing countries in 

all regions. 

Ms. Helen Chan has worked tirelessly for over a decade to assist China and other countries 

in their efforts to phase out ozone-depleting substances. Her energy, diligence and creativity 

have contributed significantly to the effective implementation of the many innovations used 

in the China phase-out effort. 

Mr. Yiu Chiu William Kwan, Programme Coordinator for nine years and current Deputy 

Chief of the Montreal Protocol Unit at UNDP, has brought to the unit the solid links he built 

in Asia, enabling the delivery of targeted assistance to enterprises and countries, contributing 

to the sustainability of compliance efforts. 

Ms. Jo Chona has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme since 199 as a 

Programme Assistant for Networking and Information Exchange. In particular, she has 

enthusiastically developed the OzonAction multi-media collection and an excellent 

internet-based “ozone quote” site. 

Ms. Ludgarde Coppens has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme in the 

South Asia and Pacific region since 2000, in the post of Policy Enforcement Officer during 

the past five years. She has excelled in, among other things, assisting the 27 countries of the 

region in setting up licensing systems and ozone-depleting-substance-related policies and 

regulations. 


Ms. Cecilia U. Corpus joined the UNDP Montreal Protocol Unit in 1991 and was 

instrumental in operationalizing the global mobile air-conditioning sector bilateral 

programme between the United States of America and UNDP. She played a key role in the 

first UNDP methyl bromide demonstration projects in Africa and the Middle East, bringing a 

wide range of partners to the table and creating greater project ownership at the local level. 

Mr. James Stevens Curlin, Information Manager, has been working with the UNEP 

OzonAction Programme since 1992. Among other accomplishments, he has been responsible 

for the development of the outstanding OzonAction International Information Clearinghouse, 

the first such successful clearinghouse under any multilateral environmental agreement. 

Ms. Brenda C. Davis has worked as a Programme and Administrative Associate for the 

UNDP Montreal Protocol Unit for the past 10 years and has devoted her time to supporting 

the unit deliver on agreed targets. The good partnership with UNDP country offices and her 

overall knowledge of UNDP rules and regulations has brought added value to the unit. 

Ms. Samira de Gobert has worked for OzonAction for nearly 10 years as Media and 

Information Assistant. She has done outstanding work in providing the Parties and the media 

with information on ozone. Her work has included the electronic newsletters OzoNews, 

Clio -on Ozone and Climate linkage, and Rumba on Methyl Bromide. 

Ms. Artie Dubrie has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme for five years 

as Policy Enforcement Officer in the Latin America and Caribbean region. She has been 

hugely successful in assisting the 2 countries of the region in setting up licensing systems 

and ozone-depleting substance policies and regulations. 

Ms. Elaine Feister has served the Parties for several years as a valued member of the World 

Bank Montreal Protocol team, where she has fostered the exchange of ozone information 

between various countries in which the Bank is operating. 

Ms. Anne Fenner has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme since 200 as 

Information Officer. Her dedicated work has helped demystify the science of ozone layer protection 

and enabled the development of exceptional education tools for school children and 

young people, including education packs, cartoon books and videos. 


Ms. Mary-Ellen Foley has served the Parties for several years as a valued member of the 

World Bank Montreal Protocol team, where she has played a significant role in project 

monitoring and in country initiatives including key projects in the Philippines and Pakistan. 

Ms. Maria Ghoneim has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme since its 

launch in 1991. With enthusiastic commitment and dedication, she has contributed to the 

office management of the Programme throughout its phenomenal expansion from a staff of 

three persons to more than 50 in five regions. 

Mr. Steve Gorman has had an opportunity to support developing country efforts as both a 

network coordinator for the UNEP OzonAction Programme and as manager of the World 

Bank’s ozone team. In both roles, he has used his unique abilities and creativity to help many 

developing countries in their efforts to phase out ozone-depleting substances. 

Ms. Naimeh Hadjitarkani has served the Parties for several years as a valued member of 

the World Bank Montreal Protocol team, working primarily to assist India in the 

implementation of its phase-out efforts. 

Mr. Yamar Guissé has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme in Africa as 

Refrigerant Management Plan Officer for the last five years. He has had considerable success 

in his work assisting African countries in developing refrigerant management plans to enable 

compliance with the Protocol. 

Ms. Lily Hale has worked for several years as a valued member of the World Bank 

Montreal Protocol team contributing to China’s ozone programme in the early years and 

applying experience gained in China to the Philippines. 

Mr. Thanavat Junchaya has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme since 

1998 as Regional Network Coordinator of the Southeast Asia and Pacific, assisting the 11 

countries in that region. He has steadfastly demonstrated the effectiveness of regional 

networking. 

Ms. Dominique Kayser joined UNDP in 2001. She has played a critical role in working to 

ensure the long-term sustainability of UNDP-implemented methyl bromide projects, 

factoring national development considerations into project designs. She has also been 

instrumental in identifying actions that enhance synergies between conventions and 

protocols. 


Mr. Halvart Koeppen has been working for the UNEP OzonAction Programme since 1997, 

for the last two years as Regional Network Coordinator for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 

assisting the 1 countries in the region. He has, among other things, developed valuable 

training manuals and training programmes for customs officers. 

Mr. Juan Lopez-Silva has supported the World Bank Montreal Protocol team and its efforts 

to support countries in Latin America, always striving to ensure that the ozone layer 

continued to be priority of Governments in the region. 

Ms. Teresita Macanlalay has provided substantial support to the World Bank Montreal 

Protocol team and its efforts to share technical information on the phase-out of 

ozone-depleting substances. 

Ms. Catalina Marulanda has worked with the World Bank Montreal Protocol team for 

several years assisting Parties operating under Article 5 to formulate and implement 

ozone-depleting substance phase-out activities during the controlled period of the Montreal 

Protocol. 

Ms. Josephine Masanque has served the Parties and the World Bank Montreal Protocol 

team, working primarily on phase-out efforts in Jordan. 

Mr. Ken Newcombe was the first head of the World Bank’s Montreal Protocol team. In that 

role, he had a significant impact on the early evolution of the World Bank’s Montreal 

Protocol programme. 

Mr. Erik Pedersen has been with the World Bank Montreal Protocol team for over a 

decade, where his tireless efforts to maintain a high quality of service and his work on behalf 

of China have enabled the development of many important World Bank projects. 

Mr. Frank Pinto was the founder of the UNDP Montreal Protocol Unit and its Chief for 10 

years, expanding the programme to 70 countries and pioneering the development of 

innovative approaches to help convert small- and medium-sized enterprises away from use 

of ozone-depleting substances. He also played a key role in helping larger countries develop 

their country programmes. 

Ms. Jessica Poppele was an early expert on the World Bank’s Montreal Protocol team who 

played a key role in projects in China, including the China halons sector plan. 


Mr. Neeraj Prasad has served the Parties for several years as a valued member of the World 

Bank ozone team where he has contributed to Bank efforts in both China and India. 

Mr. Billal Rahill has played key roles as both an early member of the World Bank Montreal 

Protocol team and an effective manager supporting the World Bank’s ozone efforts in India. 

Mr. Alejandro Ramirez-Pabon joined UNDP in 2002. He has brought innovative 

approaches to tackling ozone-depleting substance phase-out in the servicing sector in the 

Latin American region, and has contributed to the development of the Multilateral Fund 

metered-dose inhaler sector guidelines. 

Mr. Antonio Sabater y Sabates worked for a number of years on the UNIDO ozone team, 

providing valuable support to many developing countries, particularly in the area of methyl 

bromide. 

Mr. Sidi Menad Si Ahmed has served UNIDO and the world community as both an 

effective UNIDO programme officer working primarily on the UNIDO methyl bromide 

portfolio and then as an effective manager of the UNIDO ozone team. 

Ms. Sandra Siles has been a reliable source of support to the World Bank Montreal Protocol 

team for more than half a decade, where her work contributed to ozone layer protection. 

Ms. Louise Shaw-Barry worked for many years to support the World Bank Montreal 

Protocol team in its efforts to disseminate knowledge and information regarding the Montreal 

Protocol and related activities carried out by the Bank. 

Mr. Rajendra Shende has worked tirelessly for almost fifteen years for UNEP and the cause 

of ozone protection. His management of the OzonAction group has enabled UNEP to play 

a central role in building the capacity of Parties operating under Article 5 and enabling their 

compliance with the Protocol. 

Ms. Ruma Tavorath has served the Parties for several years as a valued member of the 

World Bank ozone team, where her drive for excellence earned recognition from all of her 

colleagues. 


Ms. Archalus Tcheknavorian-Asenbauer was chiefly responsible for bringing UNIDO into 

the Montreal Protocol and establishing a highly effective ozone group which has assisted the 

phase-out work of many developing countries. 

Mr. Horacio Terraza has served the Parties for several years as a valued member of the 

World Bank ozone team, working primarily in the Latin American region. 

Ms. Laura Tlaiye served the Parties for several years as the team leader for the 

Latin American region. 

Ms. Ellen Tynan has served the Parties and the World Bank Montreal Protocol team for 

several years, and is recognized for her contribution to the initiation of the financial agent 

workshops. 

United Nations Office for Project Services Montreal Protocol staff and technical experts 

have delivered procurement services and technical and administrative assistance to hundreds 

of Fund projects in all regions over a 12-year period. Its devoted staff and senior technical 

experts have been critical to the success of the UNDP Montreal Protocol programme. 

Ms. Mugure Kibe Ursulet has been working with the UNEP OzonAction Programme since 

199 . As Documentation Assistant, she took an active role in outreach activities. 

Mr. Jacques Van Engel has worked as Montreal Protocol Programme Coordinator in UNDP 

for 1 years and has been an outstanding contributor to many successful initiatives and 

programmes. He was instrumental in introducing end-user refrigeration sector projects and 

ensuring their implementation in low volume consuming countries. 

Ms. Mirian Vega has been working for the last five years with the UNEP OzonAction 

Programme as Regional Network Coordinator for the Latin America and Caribbean region, 

assisting the 2 countries in the region and enabling South-South cooperation between large 

countries and small island countries. 

Mr. Viraj Vithoontien has served the Parties effectively for many years, first as an effective 

UNEP regional ozone coordinator and more recently as the Senior Regional Coordinator of 

the World Bank Montreal Protocol team. 


Montreal Protocol Bilateral Implementing Agency Awards 

Under the terms of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal protocol, 

donor countries are allowed to allocate up to twenty per cent of their contribution to bilateral 

assistance. Some donor countries have used this provision to operate sizable programmes and 

provide direct assistance to a large number of developing countries to meet their obligations 

under the Montreal Protocol. Accordingly, the Bilateral Implementing Agency Award is 

being given to relevant agencies in seven such countries: 

In recognition of extraordinary assistance to developing countries in the global effort to phase 

out ozone-depleting substances and protect the ozone layer. 

Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Government of Australia 

Environment Canada 

Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Government of 

Germany, implementing through GTZ-Proklima, German Technical Cooperation 

Government of Japan 

Ministère de l’Economie, des Finances et de l’Emploi_Aide au Développement, 

Institutions multilatérales de Développement, Direction Générale du Trésor et de la 

Politique Economique / Secrétariat du Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial 

(French GEF Secretariat) 

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 

United States Environmental Protection Administration Stratospheric Protection 

Division 



Outstanding Service Awards 


Montreal Protocol Outstanding Service Awards 

Inevitably, the important service provided by some international experts and entities did not 

fit neatly into any of the specific categories previously mentioned. Accordingly, their efforts 

are being recognized with the Outstanding Service Award. 

In recognition of outstanding service to the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and the global 

effort to protect the ozone layer. 

Mr. Mohamed T. El-Ashry is recognized for his vision and steadfast support of projects to 

enable countries with economies in transition to receive assistance under the Global 

Environment Facility and thereby to comply with the Montreal Protocol. 

Mr. Michel Graber is recognized for his dedication to the cause of protecting the ozone 

layer as a representative of Israel and as deputy executive secretary of the Ozone Secretariat 

from 1996 to 2004. He was officer-in-charge from 2000 to 2002, during which time the 

Secretariat successfully convened the twelfth and thirteenth meetings of the Parties. 

Ms. Iwona Rummel-Bulska is recognized for her outstanding work serving as secretary 

and UNEP legal advisor for the ozone meetings leading up to the negotiation of the Montreal 

Protocol. 

Mr. Peter Usher is recognized for his outstanding work in organizing the initial UNEP ozone 

meetings, coordinating the world plan of action on ozone and running the Coordinating 

Committee on the Ozone Layer to enable the sharing of expert studies. 

Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol is 

recognized for its outstanding work in developing analysis and policy proposals to enable the 

transparent and effective approval of projects to enable developing country compliance with 

the Montreal Protocol. 

Mr. Omar E. El Arini is recognized for his outstanding work as Chief Officer of the 

Multilateral Fund secretariat. 


Mr. Richard Abrokwa-Ampadu is recognized for his outstanding work with the 

Multilateral Fund secretariat for over a decade, focusing, among other things, on foams 

sector projects. 

Mr. Anthony Hetherington is recognized for his outstanding work as a delegate from 

Australia and a Deputy Chief Officer of the Multilateral Fund secretariat. 

Mr. Sheng Shuo Lang is recognized for his outstanding work as a key member of the 

UNIDO Montreal Protocol team and a Deputy Chief Officer of the Multilateral Fund 

secretariat. 

Mr. Valery Smirnov is recognized for his outstanding work with the Multilateral Fund 

secretariat for over a decade, focusing among other things, on refrigeration sector projects. 

Mr. Mani Subramanian is recognized for his outstanding administrative support to the 

Multilateral Fund secretariat for over a decade. 


TEAP Champions Awards 


Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Champion Awards 

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) has been one of the key pillars of 

the Montreal Protocol. The work of this body, comprised almost entirely of volunteers, has 

been indispensable in enabling the Protocol Parties to take informed decision on key issues 

of concern. While the members of the panel that are being honored here have given much to 

the Protocol through their work on TEAP and various TEAP task forces, virtually all of them 

have also contributed to ozone layer protection in other very significant ways. 

In recognition of extraordinary service to the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and the global 

effort to protect the ozone layer 

Mr. Radhey S. Agarwal has, in addition to serving as a co-chair of the Refrigeration 

Technical Options Committee for over 12 years worked fervently to help the Government of 

India with its phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. 

Mr. Stephen O. Andersen has been working as a co-chair of TEAP and global ozone 

champion since the inception of the Protocol. His leadership and prolific efforts around the 

globe have supported the efforts of many to achieve an early phase-out of ozone-depleting 

substances. 

Mr. Paul Ashford has served as a member of the Foams Technical Options Committee since 

1991 and a co-chair since 1998. His expertise on many issues, including data management 

and the ozone-climate nexus, has benefited Parties greatly. 

Mr. Jonathan Banks has been a co-chair and indispensable member of the Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee for over 10 years. His work in TEAP on critical-use 

nominations and quarantine and pre-shipment issues, and his work outside TEAP on the 

development of methyl bromide alternatives, have contributed to ozone protection. 

Mr. Tom Batchelor served the Parties as co-chair and a valuable expert on the Methyl 

Bromide Technical Options Committee before focusing his work as an active ozone 

champion for the European Commission. 


Mr. Mohamed Besri has been a member of Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

for 15 years and has served as a co-chair since 2005. He is also full-time professor at the 

Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine in Rabat. 

Mr. Walter Brunner, in addition to serving as a co-chair of the Halons Technical Options 

Committee, has been a strong advocate for the use of recycled halons – a policy that enabled 

an early halon phase-out. 

Mr. Nick Campbell has consistently provided his unique and valuable insights to TEAP, 

helping it and the Parties in such areas as laboratory and analytical uses, process agents, 

basic domestic needs and destruction. 

Ms. Suely Machado Carvalho has served the Parties as an active delegate and headed the 

UNDP team assisting developing countries in complying with the Montreal Protocol. Suely 

served as a TEAP co-chair for nine years. 

Mr. David Catchpole has been a member of the Halons Technical Options Committee for 

over 15 years and a co-chair since 2005. His work on halons has contributed to the 

climate-ozone discussions, consideration of the phase-out of halons use in aircraft and the 

phase-out of halons in critical-use categories. 

Mr. Jorge Corona was a co-chair of the Solvents, Coatings and Adhesives Technical 

Options Committee and TEAP Senior Expert Advisor, serving the Parties for over a decade 

on a host of key issues. 

Mr. Laszlo Dobo served as a senior expert member of TEAP for eight years and in that role 

contributed valuable information to many TEAP studies. 

Mr. Abe Finkelstien has served as co-chair of many TEAP studies related to destruction and 

disposal of ozone-depleting substances. 

Mr. Yuichi Fujimoto has, in addition to serving as a senior advisor to TEAP for 10 years, 

provided invaluable assistance to Japan’s effort to phase out ozone-depleting substances. 


Mr. Ahmad Gaber was a co-chair and valued member of the Solvents, Coatings and 

Adhesives Technical Options Committee from 2001 to 200 . He is a professor at Cairo 

University and an owner of a consultancy, Chemonics. 

Ms. Andrea Hinwood was a founding member of Aerosols and Miscellaneous Uses Options 

Committee, where he served as a member from 1989 to 1995 and as co-chair from 1991 to 

1995. She is deputy chair of the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia and 

an academic at Edith Cowen University, Perth, Australia. 

Mr. Biao Jiang is a co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee. He is Professor 

of Chemistry at the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, Chinese Academy Of Sciences, 

and a member of the editorial advisory board of Chemical Communication at the Royal 

Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom. 

Mr. Lambert Kuijpers was a pioneer in the search for and implementation of 

ozone-depleting-substance-free technologies before turning his efforts to the Protocol and 

serving as a co-chair of TEAP for 17 years. His prolific work, including his work on 

replenishments, has helped the Parties greatly. 

Ms. Barbara Kucnerowicz Polak is a scientist who served the Halons Technical Options 

Committee for eight years, acting as a co-chair from 1996 to 2002. She also contributed to 

TEAP studies on hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. 

Mr. Stephen Lee-Bapty was a TEAP co-chair in 1991 and 1992, a member of the 

Economics Options Committee (1991) and co-chair of the Methyl Bromide Scientific and 

Economic Assessment (1992). 

Mr. Tamás Lotz was a TEAP Senior Expert Member from 2002 to 2006 and as a TEAP 

member contributed to the International Panel on Climate Change/TEAP Special Report. 

Ms. Jean Lupinacci was a founding co-chair of the Foams Technical Options Committee 

(1989–1995) and a member of the task force on decision XVIII/12. She is director of the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Buildings Program. 

Mr. Mohinder Malik was a member of the Solvents, Coatings & Adhesives Technical 

Options Committee for eight years and co-chair of that body for four years. He has also 

contributed to TEAP task force reports. 


Ms. Michelle Marcotte has been an active and valued member of the Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee for 15 years. She has been a co-chair of that important body 

since 2005, and has also contributed to TEAP task force reports. 

Mr. Nahum Marban Mendoza has been a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical 

Options Committee for six years and served as a co-chair from 2002 to 2005. He is a 

full-time professor at Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo. 

Ms. Melanie K. Miller has served as an active member of the Methyl Bromide Technical 

Options Committee for 1 years and has worked globally for the effective phase-out of 

methyl bromide. In the process she has helped many countries reduce or eliminate their 

reliance on this chemical. 

Mr. E. Thomas Morehouse, Jr. has been a co-chair of the Halons Technical Options 

Committee and a senior advisor to TEAP. He has also played a significant role in the military 

phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in the United States of America. 

Mr. David Okioga, has served as co-chair of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee and as a strong delegate and national ozone officer from Kenya. 

Ms. Marta Pizano de Márquez has been a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical 

Options Committee since 1998 and a co-chair of that body since 2005. She has also 

co-chaired or worked on various TEAP reports. 

Mr. José Pons is a founding member of the Aerosols and Miscellaneous Uses Options 

Committee and a co-chair of that body from 1991 to 200 . He is also a co-chair of the 

Medical Technical Options Committee and TEAP. His broad experience has been critical to 

many of the TEAP task force efforts. 

Mr. Ian J. Porter has been a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

since 1998, and a co-chair since 2005. He is a technical specialist and principal research 

scientist at the Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne, Australia, and has contributed 

to the development of alternatives to methyl bromide. 

Mr. Miguel Quintero has been a member and co-chair of the Foams Technical Options 

Committee since 2002. He is Development Leader for Polyurethane Product Research at 

Dow Europe, Brussels. 


Mr. Ian D. Rae has been a member and co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options 

Committee since 2005 and has contributed to other TEAP task force reports. He is an 

honorary professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia. 

Ms. Sally Rand was a member and co-chair of the Foams Technical Options Committee 

from 199 to 1998 and a participant on many task force efforts. She is currently the 

director of the high global warming potential greenhouse gas voluntary programme at the 

United States Environmental Protection Administration. 

Mr. Rodrigo Rodriguez-Kabana was a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee (1992–2002), serving as co-chair from 1996 to 2000. He was a member of the 

Methyl Bromide Scientific and Economic Assessment (1992). He is Professor Emeritus at 

Auburn University, Alabama, United States of America. 

Mr. K. Madhava Sarma has served as valued representative of and advisor to India. He was 

also the first Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat and has served as a senior expert 

member of TEAP since 2000 and contributed to many TEAP studies. 

Mr. Sateeaved Seebaluck has served as a senior advisor to TEAP, an active representative of 

Mauritius and a co-chair of the Open-ended Working Group. 

Ms. Lalitha Singh was co-chair of the Foams Technical Options Committee from 1996 to 

2001 and a valued participant in several TEAP studies. 

Mr. Gary Taylor served as a founding member and co-chair of the Halons Technical Options 

Committee from 1989 to 200 . He has been an ozone champion, who has worked tirelessly in 

Canada and around the world to promote alternatives to halons. 

Ms. Helen Tope has been a co-chair of the Medical Technical Options Committee and 

Aerosols and Miscellaneous Uses Options Committee for almost 15 years, where she has 

been a strong advocate for a seamless transition to CFC-free metered-dose inhalers. 

Mr. Robert van Slooten served as a co-chair of the Economics Options Committee from 

1991 to 2000. His economic background proved helpful in many task force efforts. 


Mr. Daniel P. Verdonik has served as a member of the Halons Technical Options Committee 

for 16 years and a co-chair since 2005 and has also been an international leader in the search 

for alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, particularly in military applications. 

Mr. Ashley Woodcock is a dedicated physician who volunteered his time for over a decade 

to advise the Parties on issues related to metered-dose inhalers. He served as a co-chair of the 

Aerosols and Miscellaneous Uses Options Committee and Medical Technical Options 

Committee from 199 to 200 . 

Mr. Masaaki Yamabe has served as a valued participant in the TEAP process since 1991, 

serving as a member, senior expert, and co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options 

Committee. 

Ms. Shiqiu Zhang has been a member and co-chair of the Economic Technical Options 

Committee and a senior expert on TEAP since 2000. She is Professor of Environmental 

Sciences at the College of Environmental Sciences, Peking University, China. 


Vienna Convention Awards 

for Outstanding Contributions to the Protection of the 

Ozone Layer 


Vienna Convention Awards for Outstanding Contributions 

to the Protection of the Ozone Layer 

In 2005, the Parties to the Vienna Convention celebrated the twentieth anniversary of that 

landmark framework treaty and recognized the contributions of key members of the 

scientific community who have contributed so much to the ozone regime. While this year we 

are celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, we believe it is important 

to recall that the Parties to the Montreal Protocol have relied on these and many other 

scientific experts to take important decisions on controls. Accordingly, we wanted the work 

of these experts and the scientific community to be recognized in this awards booklet. 

Mr. Ayite-Lo Nohende Ajavon of Togo has made significant contributions to the Vienna 

Convention through his roles as a long-time co-chair and key contributor to the Scientific 

Assessment Panel that developed the annual and quadrennial reports on ozone science. 

Mr. Daniel L. Albritton of the United States of America is recognized as one the world’s 

foremost experts on atmospheric science and has served as a co-chair of the Protocol’s 

Science Assessment Panel since its inception. 

Mr. James Anderson of the United States of America, who pioneered the in situ detection of 

stratospheric free radicals from balloon and high-altitude aircraft platforms, thus 

demonstrating the role of CFCs and other man-made chlorine compounds in depleting the 

ozone layer over Antarctica. 

Mr. Pieter Aucamp of South Africa served for many years as a member of the UNEP 

Environmental and Health Effects Assessment Panel. As a co-chair of the Scientific 

Assessment Panel from 1994 to 2001, he coordinated the scientific assessment of the ozone 

layer 

Mr. Rumen D. Bojkov of Bulgaria served as Chief of the World Meteorological 

Organization (WMO) Atmospheric Sciences Division from 197 to 198 . Mr. Bojkov 

initiated the first international assessment of the ozone layer. He went on to become one of 

the key organizers of five further WMO/UNEP ozone assessments. He also actively 

contributed to the preparations for the Vienna Convention. 

Mr. Paul Crutzen of the Netherlands, Mr. Mario Molina of Mexico, and Mr. Frank Rowland 

of the United States of America, jointly won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995 for their 

pioneering work on ozone-depleting substances and the stratospheric ozone layer. 


Mr. Joseph Charles Farman’s 1985 report in Nature magazine, in which he described a 0 

per cent decrease of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica in one month, confirmed the 

presence of the Antarctic ozone hole. In speculating about the cause of such a drastic decline, 

he discussed the possibility that chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere could play a role. 

Mr. Jan van der Leun of the Netherlands has served as co-chair of the UNEP 

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel under the Montreal Protocol since its inception in 

1988. In that role, he has helped Governments to comprehend more fully the scientific issues 

involved in the ozone regime. 

Mr. Godwin Olu Patrick Obasi of Nigeria served as Secretary-General of WMO from 198 

to 200 . He oversaw and contributed to the important participation of WMO in the 

development and achievements of the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone 

Layer. 

Ms. Susan Solomon of the United States of America made scientific expeditions to 

Antarctica in 1986 and 1987 to detect and quantify ozone-depleting chemicals in the 

atmosphere, which led to a greater understanding of ozone chemistry. 

Mr. Xiaoyan Tang of China has served as co-chair of the Environmental Effects Panel of the 

Montreal Protocol since 1992. She has also made critical contributions to China’s phase-out 

efforts and she was instrumental in advancing China’s ratification of the Vienna Convention 

and the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. 

Mr. Manfred Tevini of Germany has served as a co-chair of the UNEP Assessment Panel on 

the Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion since its inception. 

Mr. Mostafa Kamal Tolba of Egypt served as Executive Director of UNEP from 197 to 

1992. Mr. Tolba recognized very early that the issue of stratospheric ozone layer depletion 

needed careful scientific monitoring. He then played a critical leadership role during the 

negotiations for both the Convention and the Protocol. 

Mr. Robert Watson of the United States of America has co-chaired the Science Assessment 

Panel under the Montreal Protocol since its inception and played a key role in the negotiation 

of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol. 


A word about the Awards 

The Twentieth Anniversary Ozone Protection Awards are being given out in 10 categories. 

The recipients of awards under the first six categories outlined in this booklet were selected 

with the valuable advice of panels of international experts with a significant understanding of 

the context and contributions that have been made in the specified award areas. 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Champion Awards are being presented to those 

individuals that have volunteered to serve as co-chairs or senior experts for a certain duration 

on the Panel, which has played a key role in the success of the Montreal Protocol. 

The awards for implementing agencies recognize the contribution of those agencies and 

individuals working under the Multilateral Fund to assisting developing countries in their 

implementation of the Protocol. They are being presented to the individuals that the heads of 

the relevant programmes judge to have made the most significant contributions. 

Awards for bilateral implementing agencies are being presented to those Parties that have 

worked to implement a significant number of projects in developing countries through the 

Multilateral Funds. 

The awards for outstanding service are being presented by the Ozone Secretariat to the 

Multilateral Fund secretariat and its former or current staff, as nominated by the Head of the 

Fund secretariat, for their outstanding work in supporting developing countries. The award is 

also being presented to those individuals and institutions who, by their work and 

contributions, have provided a unique service to the Protocol Parties. 

As noted on page 27 above, the Vienna Convention Awards were issues in 2005 and are 

included in this awards booklet to commemorate the contribution that the award winners 

have also made to the Montreal Protocol. 

Finally, the recognition of exemplary projects is being addressed in a separate brochure. 


20th Anniversary of the Montreal Protocol 

Contest Winners 

*** 


Contest Winners: 

Best 20th Anniversary Related Poster 

National Ozone Unit, Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia 

Poster by: Karen Manukyan 

Ozone Office, Ministry of Environment, Lebanon 

Poster by: Rara Bark 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Poster by: 


Poster by-Karen Manukyan 

Armenia 


Poster by-Rana Bark 

Lebanon 


Poster by-United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USA 


Winners: 

Policy Category: 

Best New Paper on a Montreal Protocol Related Topic 

‘‘Policy options to reduce consumer waste to zero: comparing product stewardship and 

extended producer responsibility for refrigeration waste’’ by scott Nicol and Shirley 

Thompson, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. 

Science Category: 

‘‘The importance of the Montreal protocol on protecting climate’’ by Guus J. M Velders, 

(Netherlands Environmental Assesment Agency), Stephen O. Andersen ( US Environmental 

Protection Agency), John S. Daniel ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Earth System Research Laboratory-NOAA-ESRL), David W. Fahey (NOAA-ESRL) and 

Marc McFarland (DuPont Fluoroproducts). 


Policy Options to Reduce Consumer Waste to Zero: Comparing Product 

Stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility for Refrigerator Waste 

Scott Nicol, NRI University of Manitoba 

Dr. Shirley Thompson, NRI University of Manitoba 


ABSTRACT 

Today, over consumption, pollution and resource depletion threaten sustainability. Waste 

management policies frequently fail to reduce consumption, prevent pollution, conserve 

resources and foster sustainable products. However, waste policies are changing to focus 

on lifecycle impacts of products from the cradle to the grave by extending responsibilities 

of stakeholders to post-consumer management. Product stewardship and extended producer 

responsibility are two policies in use, with radically different results when compared for one 

consumer product, refrigerators. North America has enacted product stewardship policies 

that fail to require producers to take physical or financial responsibility for recycling or for 

environmentally sound disposal, so that releases of ozone depleting substances routinely 

occur, which contribute to the expanding the ozone hole. Conversely, Europe’s Waste 

Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive requires extended producer 

responsibility, whereby producers collect and manage their own post-consumer waste 

products. WEEE has resulted in high recycling rates of greater than 85%, reduced emissions 

of ODSs and other toxins, greener production methods, such as replacing greenhouse gas 

refrigerants with environmentally friendly hydrocarbons and more reuse of refrigerators in 

EU compared to North America. 

KEY WORDS 

Extended producer responsibility, product stewardship, refrigerator, end-of-life, waste 


INTRODUCTION 

Effective waste policies are badly needed as waste per capita continues to increase 

throughout North America and the world. Inefficient production processes, poor product 

design and societal over-consumption are blamed (Sinclair and Quinn 2006). In North 

America, municipal waste management subsidies have ultimately created a ‘disposable 

society’ (Seidel 2006). Municipalities are obligated to manage consumer waste streams with 

the costs levied through municipal taxes, rather than internalized into product pricing. 

Policymakers are now emphasizing lifecycle analysis, which examines cradle-to-grave 

impacts of products and processes. This analysis extends responsibilities to one or more 

stakeholders along the product chain to include post consumer management. Although 

“waste generation should be prevented in the first place; and final residuals should be treated 

in an efficient manner” (OECD 2001:93), realistically, life-cycle impacts are externalities, not 

required to be counteracted or paid for by the producer (BIAC 1998). 

Responsibilities for end-of-life management must be assigned and clearly articulated when 

developing policy if waste from consumer products is to be reduced. Effective policies 

exploit all possible avenues for waste reduction (i.e., source reduction, recycling, material 

substitution, etc.). Product and producer responsibility policies have emerged as two 

important approaches to minimize environmental impacts of products and realize zero waste. 

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) requires producers to pay the cost of recycling their 

post-consumer waste (Sachs 2006; Walls 2006). Conversely, product stewardship does not 

target producers specifically, relying upon other stakeholders, with costs paid by consumers, 

material handling by the vendor or municipality, and no required recycling targets (Schwartz 

and Gattuso 2002; Short 200 ; Walls 2006). In 2006, the European Union (EU) adopted EPR 

to deal with the growing volume of refrigerators and electronics while North America has no 

sustainable electronics management plan (Sachs, 2006; Short, 200 ). Thus, it is important to 

see whether EPR has any benefits over product stewardship to recommend policy for 

post-consumer refrigerator management in North America. 

APPROACH 

EPR and product stewardship policies were compared for effectiveness at achieving 

environmental goals, particularly towards refrigerators in Europe and North America. A 

literature review, interviews, a survey and tours of recycling and disposal facilities in the US, 

Canada and the EU were conducted to ascertain the impact of different policies for the 

management of post consumer waste refrigerators. 


Fifty million refrigerators are sent for disposal each year in North America and Europe 

respectively, representing one percent of the total municipal solid waste stream. Refrigerator 

waste management is an important case study as they contain ozone-depleting substances 

(ODS). Refrigerators contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in their insulating foam and 

cooling circuit, which are major contributors to ozone depletion. Releasing refrigerants into 

the atmosphere has created “ozone holes,” which are severe depletions of the stratospheric 

ozone layer above the Arctic and Antarctic poles. The chlorine from CFC molecules bond 

with oxygen destroying 100,000+ ozone (O ) molecules over its 0-120 year life span. 

Scientists report that the 2006 ozone hole was the largest to date (NASA 2006). The ozone 

layer is needed to protect life from the harmful impacts of solar radiation. With its thinning, 

increases in skin cancer, cataracts, and loss of species diversity have occurred over the last 

few decades (The Ozone Hole 2006). Additionally, each kilogram of CFC-12, one of the 

most commonly used CFCs, has the global warming potential of about 11,000 kilograms of 

carbon dioxide. Despite implementing the Montreal Protocol (the international agreement 

to protect the stratospheric ozone layer), Canada and the US have no comprehensive waste 

management policy for discarded refrigerators. 

Although EPR and product stewardship are very different in practice, these terms are used 

interchangeably (Worrell and Appleby 2000:266). McKerlie, Knight, and Thorp (2006) 

found that policy makers confuse these terms, mistaking shared responsibilities for sole 

producer accountability. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) describes 

product stewardship as a system of shared responsibility extending beyond EPR (Hanisch 

2000). Similarly, Minnesota (2006) makes no distinction between extended product 

responsibility, shared responsibility, manufacturer responsibility, and EPR. As well, EPR 

is labelled product stewardship: British Columbia’s ‘full product stewardship approach,’ is 

actually an EPR policy as producers assume full physical and financial responsibility, which 

includes consumer education, collection, recycling, etc. This mixing up of the two obliterates 

the important difference “between truly progressive EPR programs which aim to prevent 

rising levels of waste and pollution, versus shared product stewardship initiatives” which do 

not (McKerlie, Knight, and Thorp 2006:620). 

COMPARING THE TWO POLICIES 

There are many product/producer responsibility strategies as Diagram 1 shows the continuum 

from low producer responsibility for product stewardship to ultimate producer responsibility 

for EPR. 


Diagram 1: Continuum of Producer Responsibility for Different Strategies. 

‹------------------------------- Decreasing Producer Responsibility ‹------------------------ 

Product 

Stewardship 

Shared 

Responsibility 

Shared Producer 


Producer 


Extended 

Producer 


----------------------------------› Increasing Producer Responsibility -----------------------› 

Modified from: (Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD 1998) 

Extended Producer Responsibility 

EPR is defined as “the producers’ responsibility, physical and/or financial, for a product 

[which] is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle, to provide incentives 

to producers to incorporate environmental considerations in the design of their products” 

(OECD 2001:18). Physical responsibility refers to the direct or indirect handling of a 

product, including take-back by producer for recycling (Toffel 2002). Financial 

responsibility has the producer pay for any end-of-life recycling and disposal costs. 

This relieves municipalities of the financial burden of waste management and encourages 

producers to reduce resources, utilize recycled materials, and undertake product design 

changes to reduce waste (OECD 2001 in Walls, 200 ). The producer is in the best position to 

assume waste management responsibilities, holding the most product-related knowledge and 

controlling the production and design process. 

EPR includes product recycling, regulation, and redesign as solutions for sustainability. 

Policy instruments can include product fees, such as advance recycling fees (ARFs), product 

take-back mandates, virgin material taxes, pay-as-you-throw, waste collection charges, and 

landfill bans (Sachs 2006). Consumer education programs, that encourage product recycling 

over disposal, help producers effectively recover their products from consumers. 

EPR policies have three characteristics: 1) a focus on end-of-life waste management to 

encourage environmental redesign, 2) a shift of physical and/or financial responsibilities from 

taxpayer/consumer to producer, and ) an explicit target for waste reduction (e.g., WEEE 

75—80% recycling of refrigerators). Mandated programs “force producers to get involved in 

managing material streams” (McKerlie, Knight, and Thorp 2006:625). Effective EPR 

programs require government regulations mandating producer responsibility for the physical 

and financial take-back of their products with limited government involvement. An open 

market with diverse competition for waste management is considered to be more effective 

than state-run programs, which suppress competition (Sheehan and Spiegelman 2005b). 

Mandated programs prohibit ‘free riders,’ who abuse take-back programs by using the 

established infrastructure for collecting their product without providing an ARF to fund that 

system. 


When lifecycle environmental costs are required to be paid by the producer, implementing 

green production processes makes economic sense. Design for Environment (DfE) has 

producers considering “at the development phase of a products life cycle, the environmental 

impacts through enhancing the product design…[which] includes resource consumption, 

both in material and energy terms and pollution prevention” (Dantes 2005:1). Environmental 

considerations in product design include: waste minimization, reuse or recyclability, material 

conservation, pollution reduction, lower toxicity and “eco-design” (Schwartz and Gattuso, 

2002; Walls, 2006). 

EU’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive 

The WEEE Directive is EPR legislation that regulates the collection, recovery, reuse, and 

recycling of electrical and electronic equipment destined for disposal. The onus of 

post-consumer product disposal is solely the producers and requires all products on the 

market be designed for disassembly and recovery. Consumers of WEEE products must have 

the opportunity to return waste items, without charge, to collection facilities with the 

producer responsible for product recovery (M. Baker Recycling 2006). 

Prior to WEEE, several member states within the EU (Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, 

Norway, and Switzerland) adopted national regulations and management schemes for 

e-wastes (Sachs 2006; Savage et al 2006). Programs operated at a recycling rate of 

approximately 80-90% with 97% achieved by Switzerland. The Norwegian, Belgian, and 

Dutch models had visible ARFs on the sale of white goods (i.e. all refrigerators in Belgium 

had a flat fee of 20 euros per unit) while the Netherlands charged costs related to the cost/ease 

of recycling specific products. Industry supports ARFs to illustrate the costs of recycling 

historical waste for periods of eight-ten years. As pre-2005 orphaned products (after August 

1 , 2005 producers deal only with their own products) become a smaller part of total waste 

collected, producers have greater incentive for ecodesign, to reduce costs associated with 

recycling/reuse and individual collection, for a market price advantage (Savage, 2006). 

Drawbacks to EPR 

The majority of producers saw few commercial opportunities in implementing WEEE, only 

‘a burden and a challenge, nothing positive’ (Savage et al 2006:25). The 20 euro ARF 

applied to the sale of refrigerators in Belgium does little to drive DfE changes, by not 

rewarding manufacturers/consumers of environmentally friendly refrigerators. The lack of 

linkage between fee levels for recycling and actual costs (as a result of cross subsidy or high 

administrative costs) has led some producers to show that “a cost-effective recycling solution 

is not necessarily related to environmental benefit” (Savage, 2006:30). Many producers are 

disappointed at the missing incentives in the Directive for better environmental performance, 

as they will be charged for their products on, e.g. a weight basis, independently from the 

attributes of their products in the same category. Although all nations allow individual and 

collective producer compliance, criteria usually encourages producers to join a single national 

collective system to reduce the burden of monitoring and approvals on government. Some 

producers argue that waste management requirements of EPR are unfair as producers are not 

experienced waste managers. Furthermore, product related environmental footprints are not 

always reduced by the producer acting alone, without other actors, such as retailers, 

consumers, and municipal waste management organizations “pitch[ing] in for the most 

workable and cost-effective solution” (US EPA 2001 in Toffel 2002:5). 


Product Stewardship 

Product stewardship is “an environmental management strategy that means whoever designs, 

produces, sells, or uses a product takes responsibility for minimizing the products 

environmental impact through all stages of the products lifecycle” (NWPSC 2001 in Toffel 

2002:5). This multi-stakeholder approach advocates participation from all actors along the 

product chain including the producer, manufacturer, importer, distributor, retailer, consumer, 

and recycler (Sheehan and Spiegelman 2005a). Ideally, responsibility is divided up as 

follows: producers ensure that collection and recycling infrastructure is in place, consumers 

pay levies and deliver the product to collection points, retailers participate in collection of 

waste, and governments establish standards and ensure free riders do not take advantage of 

the system (Thorpe, Kruszewska, and McPherson 200 ). 

However, allocating responsibilities among many stakeholders often leads to confusion over 

who is primarily responsible for end-of-life management (OECD 2001; Thorp, Kruszewska, 

and McPherson 2004). As well, the role of producer is limited, typically, having no financial 

or physical responsibility. Shared responsibility approaches fail to internalize environmental 

impact costs, providing no feedback to the producer regarding lifecycle management costs 

of their products. Although product stewardship programs increase recycling rates they fail 

to reduce consumption or prevent pollution. This legislation neglects to prevent waste, as it 

provides no incentive for DfE and does not impose hazardous wastes restrictions (i.e. RoHS) 

or recycled content targets. Overall, product stewardship programs are a “step in the wrong 

direction because they will not lead to better and safer product design nor will they lead to 

the phase out of hazardous chemicals in the product” (Thrope, Kruszewska, and McPherson 

200 :21). 

Policy makers in North America are reluctant to require EPR. The US has rarely mandated 

strict guidelines for product manufacturing towards processes or types of materials used. 

The lack of green product development, compared to the EU, is explained by the “stronger 

conception of individual and property rights in the United States, the legacy of the western 

frontier and the relative abundance of open space in the United States, and a greater mistrust 

of government in the United States” (Sachs 2006:86). Also US manufacturers lobbied for 

product stewardship over mandated EPR (Thorpe, Kruszewska, and McPherson 200 ). 

Industry pressure led to the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development abandoning 

EPR for voluntary, shared responsibilities (Sheehan and Spiegelman 2005a). 


Comparing the Two Policy Approaches for Effective in Refrigerator Management 

Table 1 compares the two policy approaches -- EPR in the EU to product stewardship in 

North America for refrigerator management. 

Table 1: Comparison Between Different Refrigerator Waste Approaches in the European 

Union and Canada 

Environmental, and funding 

considerations of policies 

Targets to encourage full 

recycling/reuse 

Recycling rates Recycling rates exceeded 80% 

reaching 97% in Switzerland. 

Best Available Technology (BAT) 

for recycling 

Adequate funding for collection 

and recycling 

EPR in WEEE Directive – EU Product Stewardship -- 

North America 

Minimum 75-80% per unit. No target requirements set. 

Required. MeWa/SEG 

advanced technology reduces ODS 

emissions. 

ODS in refrigerant recovered Yes (Average 99% recovery rate 

under MeWa/SEG 

technology) 

Adequate infrastructure in place 

for recycling 

ODS in insulating foam 

recovered 

Unknown (much less than 75%) 

Not required. Automotive 

shredding releases ODS and other 

toxic materials. 

Yes -- producer pays Generally, municipalities do not 

provide enough funding for BAT. 

Yes (inclusive refrigerator 

recycling facilities) 

Monitoring and regulation of ODS Yes – 0.05 grams per hour, strict 

regulation. 

Monitoring and regulation of 

mercury switches and PCB 

Free of Charge Take-back for 

consumer paid by producer 

Yes with an estimated 10% 

non-compliance found in 

Canada from Survey of 45 landfills 

Generally limited to scrap metal 

recycling and refrigerant recovery. 

Yes. No facility in Canada to 

recover ODS in foam results in 

its release. Manual disassembly 

techniques reduce emissions. 

Recovered prior to recycling No 

Yes, however, rarely enforced. 

Yes No. Costs $ 5-115 to 

consumer for pick-up and 

decommissioning results in 

illegal refrigerant venting or unit 

disposal. 

Collection systems Yes. Usually municipal solid waste 

Regulation prohibiting toxic 

materials 

Yes – RoHS No 

Incentives for DfE Yes No 

Promotion of reuse Yes No – discourage reuse due to older 

models using 2x 

electricity. 

Incentives for 

repair/remanufacture 

Yes No 

Landfill ban Yes Limited – Depends on jurisdiction 


North American and EU approaches to refrigerator management show the striking differences 

between product stewardship and EPR on: recovery/recycling/reuse targets, emissions of 

ODS, and environmental design feedback. The EU has much higher recycling rates for all 

refrigerator components whereas North America, recycling is limited to metals and 

refrigerant collection. In the EU, WEEE stipulates that 75-80% of all component parts from 

refrigerators must be recycled or reused (Official Journal of the EU 2003, M. Baker 2006, 

Walls 2006). For example, the Dutch Management of White and Brown Goods Decree 

(1998) set recycling targets at 75% and actually achieved 85.5% between the years 2000- 

2001 (Walls 2006). By producers being required to fund recycling and collection 

infrastructure, implementation of best available treatment technology is possible (Sachs, 

2006). For refrigerators that means properly extracting, containing, and treating any ODS 

or greenhouse gases contained in a cooling circuit or insulating foam (Official Journal of the 

EU 200 ). For example, the UK has a number of refrigerator recycling factories to service 

the many municipal collection centres throughout the country. Specialized treatment systems 

have been installed for collection of refrigerant, shredding and separating component 

materials, treating insulating foams for CFCs, and recovering compressor oils. Recovery 

rates for ODS are strictly regulated and emissions from recycling factories are limited to 

less than five grams per hour (with actual emissions of less than one gram per hour) (Sims 

Group 2004). Exceeding limits trigger alarms and requires an environmental officer to visit 

and apply warnings or fines (Pers. Comm. Reeves & Holyoak, 2006). In contrast, only a few 

local governments in North America run appliance collection programs due in part to limited 

funding (Pers. Comm Art Eggleton 2006), with plastics and untreated ODS insulating foams 

typically being landfilled. In EU, one recycler uses treated ODS foams as oil and chemical 

binders called ÖKO-Pur (SEG 2007), although much still goes to landfill after treatment 

(Pers. Comm Holyoak, Reeves, and Dunham 2006). In the EU, mercury switches are 

collected by hand prior to recycling to prevent contamination but in North America, they 

are often shredded with the refrigerator causing widespread contamination of a highly toxic 

compound. 

In the EU, the ban on hazardous substances (RoHS) and the internalization of waste 

management costs has resulted in ecodesign. WEEE requires that new electrical and 

electronic equipment contain no hazardous materials (Macauley, Palmer and Shih, 200 ), 

requiring hydroflourocarbon (HFC) replacement by hydrocarbons as a refrigerant. Electrolux, 

the world’s largest appliance manufacturer, has actively reduced the toxic impacts of their 

refrigerators through DfE. In Europe, R1 a (an HFC with a high global warming potential 

[GWP] of 1, 00) has been successfully switched to cyclopentane as an auxiliary blowing 

agent and isobutane has replaced R1 a as the refrigerant (Wilt 1997). Conversely, in North 

America the municipality or consumer, and not the producer, pays for disposal, recycling and 

decommissioning. As a result, end-of-life costs remain externalities, providing no incentive 

to prevent pollution by switching to hydrocarbons or require environmental waste 

management. 


In North America, most ODS, oils and other toxic compounds in refrigerators are released. 

Automotive shredders separate component parts — potentially releasing compressor oils 

(containing residual ODS) and ODS within insulating foams ( 5% ODS immediately 

released, with remainder off-gassing over time in landfill). Best available technology is not 

required and rarely used, but some recycling facilities in the U.S. recover ODS foam 

manually, which results in only minimal loss during rip-down (Dunham 2006). Seventy-five 

percent of ODS is contained within the foam, which is typically landfilled untreated, resulting 

in its release with only 25% of ODS refrigerant recovered. However, this refrigerant isn’t 

always recovered: approximately 10% of the time, the consumer avoids the end-of-life 

decommissioning costs, which amount to $ 5-$155, by releasing it. Thus, 75% to 100% of 

the ODS is typically released in North America. Enforcement of ODS regulations are rarely 

imposed and those in contravention are rarely disciplined (Friends of the Earth 2001). 

Finally, reuse of refrigerators is favoured in the EU more than North America as embodied 

energy and recycling costs are considered (Sachs, 2006). Many EU recyclers partner with 

social and community organizations to refurbish older low-cost appliances for lower income 

families (Sims Recycling Solutions 200 ). Conversely, in North America, a few utility driven 

recycling and collection programs focus on removing older appliances, which require twice 

the energy of an equivalent newer appliance. Incentive is given to the resident, either as 

cash or a rebate on their utility bill. Although this reduces consumption of electricity for the 

refrigerator, it increases consumption of new refrigerators. 

CONCLUSION 

Wastage has risen over the past few decades due, in part, to ineffective policies that have 

failed to account for lifecycle environmental impacts of consumer products. Although EPR 

and product stewardship policies both share a similar foundation in extending responsibilities 

for waste management but differ radically in their effectiveness. The blurring of the lines 

between each approach has confused policy makers -- this confusion has to be removed in 

order to arrive at truly progressive polices that prevent rising levels of waste and pollution. 

To achieve high recycling rates, reduce ODS and other toxic emissions, encourage 

environmental design and provide adequate funding — EPR is clearly superior. EPR 

provides best available technologies for ODS recovery (in both the cooling circuit and 

insulating foam), treatment of toxic and hazardous substances (mercury switches) and has 

markets for recovered materials such as steel, aluminium, copper, plastic, glass and emerging 

ones for insulating foams. Mandatory EPR programs that target specific recovery and 

recycling rates are effective in reducing waste and driving DfE changes for consumer 

products, such as switching from HFCs to hydrocarbons as refrigerant. In contrast, product 

stewardship externalizes end-of-life costs and provides no incentive to prevent the generation 

of waste during the design stage and no regulation to reduce emissions or increase recycling 

rates. EPR has rarely been applied in North America, despite the lacklustre performance of 

product stewardship at reducing waste and preventing pollution, which has the municipality 

or consumer taking back the products and paying end-of-life costs. However, British 

Columbia’s full product stewardship program, provides a North American EPR model in 

which industry must take physical and financial responsibility for their products. 


REFERENCES 

Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) (1998): BIAC statement to the OECD EPR Workshop on 

extended and shared responsibility for products: Washington, D.C., December 1- 1998, 1-5 

Dantes Project (2005): Glossary. Demonstrate and assess new tools for environmental sustainability. From 

Dantes Project (2005): http://www.dantes.info/Projectinformation/ Glossary/Glossary.html (June 15, 2006) 

Friends of the Earth (2001): Domestic Appliance Collection and Disposal Programs: Provincial and Municipal 

Efforts Regarding the Implementation of ODS Recovery Programs for Domestic Appliances. Prepared for Environment 

Canada, pp. 5-22. 

Hanisch C. (2000): Is extended producer responsibility effective? American Chemical Society , 70A-175A 

M. Baker Recycling (2006): WEEE background. From: M. Baker Recycling (2006): 

http://www.weeedirective. co.uk/weeebackground.asp (May 25, 2006) 

Macauley M, Palmer K & Shih J. (200 ): Dealing with electronic waste: modeling the costs and environmental 

benefits of computer model disposal, Journal of Environmental Management, 68, pp.13-22. 

McKerlie, K., Knight, K., & Thorpe, B. (2006): Advancing extended producer responsibility in Canada. Journal 

of Cleaner Production, 1 , 616-628 

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) (2006): Product stewardship: considering the afterlife. 

From MOEA (2006): http://www.moea.state.mn.us/res/ productstewardship.cfm (July 27, 2006) 

NASA. (2006): NASA and NOAA announce ozone hole is a double record breaker. From: NASA (2006): http:// 

www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ ozone_ record.html (March 6, 2007) 

NWPSC (2001): Defining product stewardship: http://www.productstewardship.net/ 

definingStewardship.html (Feb. 21, 2002). In: Toffel M. (2002): The regulatory and judicial roots of product 

stewardship in the United States. Haas School of Business: University of California—Berkeley. From: http:// 

faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/toffel/papers/ Regulatory%20&%20judicial%20roots%20of%20PS%20in%20US.pdf 

(July 21, 2006) 

Official Journal of the European Union (2003). Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the 

Council of 27 January 200 on waste electrical and electronic equipment. EU: Belligium 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001): Extended producer responsibly: a guidance 

manual for governments, 15-161. 

Pers. Comm. (2007): Art Eggleton, Partner, Appliance Recycling Canada, Inc., telephone interview January 

2007. 

Pers. Comm. (2006): Jason Reeves, Assistant Manager, Sims | Recycling Solutions –Newport, Wales, UK, personal 

interview and tour September 2006. 

Pers. Comm. (2006): Rauiri Holyoake, Environmental Officer, M. Baker Recycling, St. Helens, Merseyside, 

UK, personal interview and tour September 2006. 

Pers. Comm. (2006): Michael Dunham, Director: Energy and Environmental Programs, JACO Environmental 

Inc, telephone interview December 2006. 

Sachs, N. (2006): Planning the funeral at the birth: extended producer responsibility in the European union and 

the Unites States, Harvard Environmental Law Review. Vol. 0, pp. 51-98. 


Savage, M. et al. (2006): Implementation of waste electric and electronic equipment directive in EU 25. Institute 

for Positive Technologies Studies. European Commission (Directorate-General) Joint Research Centre. 

Schwartz, J., & Gattuso, D. (2002): Extended producer responsibility: re-examining its role in Enviornmental 

Progress. Reason Public Policy Institute, 1-65. From: 

http://www.rppi.org/ps29 .pdf (March 1, 2006). 

SEG (2007): Secondary raw materials. From SEG (2007): http://www.seg-online.de/en/index1.php?id=recycling 

(March 12, 2007). 

Seidel C. (2006): Zeroing in on waste: the role of extended producer responsibility in a zero waste strategy. 

Recycling Council of Alberta. From Recycling Council of Alberta (2006): http://www.gpiatlantic.org/conference/proceedings/seidel.ppt 

(Feb. 27, 2006) 

Sheehan, B., & Spiegelman, H. (2005a): Extended producer responsibility policies in the United States and 

Canada. in: Scheer, D., & Rubik, F. (2005): Governance of Integrated Product Policy, pp.202-22 . Greenleaf 

Publishing, Sheffield, U.K. 

Sheehan, B., & Spiegelman, H. (2005b): EPR in the US and Canada. Resource Recycling, 2 : , pp.18-21 

Short, M. (200 ): Taking back the trash: comparing European extended producers responsibility and take-back 

liability to U.S. environmental policy and attitudes. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 7, pp.1217-125 . 

Sims Group (200 a): End-of-life fridges. From Sims Group: Solutions Centre: United Kingdom (200 ): http:// 

www.sims-group.com/uk/solutions/elf_sc.asp (January 2, 2007). 

Sims Recycling Solutions (200 ): End-of-life fridges. From Sims Recycling Solutions (200 ): http://www.simsgroup.com/uk/solutions/content/elf/Fridge-Recycling-General.pdf 

(January 2, 2007). 

Sinclair, A., & Quinn, L. (2006): Policy challenges to implementing extended producer responsibility for packaging. 

Canadian Public Administration 9, 60-79 

Sun Microsystems (2006): Environment, health, and safety: WEEE returns. From Sun Microsystems Inc. 

(2006): http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/ehs/weee.html (January 2, 2007). 

The Ozone Hole (2006): Ozone hole consequences. From the Ozone Hole (2006): http://www.theozonehole. 

com/ consequences.htm (January 2, 2007). 

Thompson, S. and Oh, S. (2006): Do Sustainable Computers Result from Design for Environment and Extended 

Producer Responsibility?: Analyzing E-Waste Programs in Europe and Canada. Proceedings from the International 

Solid Waste Association’s 2006 Annual Congress, Copenhagen, 1-5 Oct, p.7. 

Thorpe, B., Kruszewska, I., & McPherson, A. (200 ): Extended producer responsibility: a waste management 

strategy that cuts waste, creates a cleaner environment and saves taxpayers money. Clean Production Action, - 

28. From: www.sustainablecommunities. fcm.ca/files/Tools/EPR_Toolkit.pdf (Accessed July 21, 2006) 

Toffel M. (2002): The regulatory and judicial roots of product stewardship in the United States. Haas School of 

Business: University of California—Berkeley. From: 

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/toffel/papers/Regulatory%20&%20judicial%20roots%20of%20PS%20in%20US 

.pdf (July 21, 2006) 


Walls, M. (200 ). The Role of Economics in Extended Producer Responsibility: Making Policy Choices and 

Setting Policy Goals. Resources for the Future, pp. 1-29. 

From http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-0 -11.pdf. (accessed July 21, 2006). 

Walls M. (2006): Extended producer responsibility and product design: economic theory and selected case 

studies. Resources for the Future, 1- 6. From: http://www.rff.org/ 

Documents/RFF-DP-06-08-REV.pdf (July 21, 2006) 

Wilt, K. (1997): The Frigidaire Company’s program for recyclable product development of refrigerators. University 

of Tennessee: Centre for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. In: Davis, G., Wilt, C., Dillon, P., & 

Fishbein, B. (1997): Extended product responsibility: a new principle for product-orientated pollution prevention. 

Prepared for US EPA Office of Solid Waste, pp.4-1— 4-10. 

From: http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/clean/pdfs/ eprn1- .pdf (March 12, 2006) 

Worrell, R., & Appleby, M. (2000): Stewardship of natural resources: definition, ethical and practical aspect. 

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12, 26 -277. 


The importance of the Montreal Protocol 

in protecting climate 

Guus J. M. Velders* † , Stephen O. Andersen ‡ , John S. Daniel § , David W. Fahey § , and Mack McFarland 

*Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, P.O. Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The Netherlands; ‡ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Code 6202J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; § Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO 80305; and DuPont Fluoroproducts, Wilmington, DE 19805 

Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved January 11, 2007 (received for review November 21, 2006) 

The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer is a landmark agreement that has successfully reduced the 

global production, consumption, and emissions of ozone-depleting 

substances (ODSs). ODSs are also greenhouse gases that contribute 

to the radiative forcing of climate change. Using historical ODSs 

emissions and scenarios of potential emissions, we show that the 

ODS contribution to radiative forcing most likely would have been 

much larger if the ODS link to stratospheric ozone depletion had 

not been recognized in 1974 and followed by a series of regulations. 

The climate protection already achieved by the Montreal 

Protocol alone is far larger than the reduction target of the first 

commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Additional climate 

benefits that are significant compared with the Kyoto Protocol 

reduction target could be achieved by actions under the Montreal 

Protocol, by managing the emissions of substitute fluorocarbon 

gases and/or implementing alternative gases with lower global 

warming potentials. 

Kyoto Protocol ozone layer radiative forcing 

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances 

(ODSs) are now globally recognized as the main 

cause of the observed depletion of the ozone layer (1–5). Molina 

and Rowland (6) first recognized the potential for CFCs to 

deplete stratospheric ozone in 1974, thereby providing an ‘‘early 

warning.’’ This scientific warning led to ODS emission reductions 

by citizen action and national regulations (7, 8). A decade 

later, the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica (9) and the 

subsequent attribution to ODSs (10, 11) further heightened 

concern. The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete 

the Ozone Layer formally recognized the significant threat 

of the ODSs to the ozone layer and provided a mechanism to 

reduce and phase-out the global production and consumption of 

ODSs. Under the Montreal Protocol and national regulations, 

significant decreases have occurred in the production, use, emissions, 

and observed atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11, CFC- 

113, methyl chloroform, and several other ODSs (4, 12–14) and 

there is emerging evidence for recovery of stratospheric ozone (4, 

15). In a ‘‘world avoided’’ that lacks the early warning in 1974 and 

the Montreal Protocol of 1987, depletion of the ozone layer likely 

would be much greater than observed in our world today. 

ODSs and their substitute fluorocarbon gases are also greenhouse 

gases (16–21), which contribute to the radiative forcing 

(RF) of climate (5). Thus, actions under the Montreal Protocol 

to phase out ODSs and/or increase the use of substitute gases 

have consequences for climate forcing. Earlier studies have 

recognized that continued growth in ODS emissions would lead 

to significant increases in direct RF or climate warming (16–19, 

21–24), although ozone depletion from ODS would counteract 

some of the forcing (25). More specifically, reductions in atmospheric 

ODS concentrations, achieved to protect ozone, also 

serve to protect climate. This dual protection of ozone and 

climate by Montreal Protocol provisions warrants a comprehensive 

assessment, especially since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (26) of 

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

entered into force in February 2005. The Kyoto Protocol is a 

global treaty to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide, CO2, the 

leading greenhouse gas, and five other gases, none of which are 

ODSs. The absence of ODSs in the Kyoto Protocol and the 

absence of formal climate considerations in the Montreal Protocol 

serve as motivation to consider past and future scenarios 

of ODS emissions and their substitutes, and their relevance to 

anthropogenic RF. 

We report here how national regulations, voluntary actions, 

and compliance with the Montreal Protocol have protected 

climate in the past and can add to climate protection in the 

future. Our comprehensive evaluation of the ‘‘worlds avoided’’ 

with ODS regulation considers three aspects: (i) time-dependent 

scenarios of annual ODS production, emissions, concentrations, 

and associated RF; (ii) the time dependence of CO2 emissions 

and associated RF; and (iii) the offsets of climate protection by 

ODSs caused by stratospheric ozone depletion and the use of ODS 

substitute gases. We show what has already been achieved for 

climate by the Montreal Protocol and compare it with the Kyoto 

Protocol target, what is likely to happen in the near future based on 

current ODS regulations, and finally what potentially can be 

achieved for climate in the future with additional ODS regulations. 

ODS Scenarios 

Three scenarios are considered in this analysis. Each scenario 

uses observations, calculations, and certain assumptions to formulate 

annual emissions between 1960 and 2020 for ODSs. 

These emissions are expressed in terms of mass with and without 

weighting by 100-yr Global Warming Potentials (GWP) (4) [see 

Figs. 1 and 2, Table 1, and supporting information (SI) Text]. 

The first is the baseline scenario representing ODS emissions 

as they have occurred up to 2004 and as projected into the future 

assuming compliance with Montreal Protocol provisions. 

CFC-11 and CFC-12 were the most abundant CFCs in the 

atmosphere before 1974 and remain so today. Before 1974, the 

production of ODSs grew rapidly primarily as a result of use as 

aerosol propellants and refrigerants, and the introduction of new 

uses including solvents and foams (7). In response to the early 

warning (6) in 1974 by scientists, and encouraged by advertisements 

for alternative products, many consumers in North Amer- 

Author contributions: G.J.M.V., S.O.A., J.S.D., D.W.F., and M.M. designed research; G.J.M.V. 

performed research; G.J.M.V. analyzed data; and G.J.M.V., S.O.A., J.S.D., D.W.F., and M.M. 

wrote the paper. 

The authors declare no conflict of interest. 

This article is a PNAS direct submission. 

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. 

Abbreviations: CFC, chlorofluorocarbons; GWP, global warming potential; HCFC, hydrochlorofluorocarbons; 

HFC, hydrofluorocarbons; IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change; MR74, Molina and Rowland; NMP87, no Montreal Protocol; ODS, ozone-depleting 

substance; RF, radiative forcing. 

† To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: guus.velders@mnp.nl. 

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/ 

0610328104/DC1. 

© 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA 

4814–4819 PNAS March 20, 2007 vol. 104 no. 12 www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0610328104

Production (kt yr -1 ) 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

Production CFC-11 

0 

1960 1970 1980 1990 

Year 

2000 2010 2020 

ica stopped using CFC aerosol products (e.g., deodorants and 

hairsprays), and governments in the United States, Canada, the 

Netherlands, and Sweden either banned or discouraged use of 

ODSs in most personal care aerosol products (7). These actions 

reduced annual global CFC production from 910 ktyr 1 in 

1974 to 850 ktyr 1 by 1979. Continued growth in refrigerant 

uses, rapid growth in the more recently introduced applications 

of solvents, foam-blowing agents, and fire protection agents and 

continued use in aerosol products in Europe and Asia returned 

production to 1,170 ktyr 1 by 1987. Both the early warning and 

the Montreal Protocol initiated a change in fluorocarbon quantities 

and their use patterns toward more environmentally ac- 

Production (kt yr -1 ) 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

Production CFC-12 

0 

1960 1970 1980 1990 

Year 

2000 2010 2020 

Mixing ratio (ppt) 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

Mixing ratio 

MR74 

NMP87 

Baseline 

CFC-12 

CFC-11 

0 

1960 1970 1980 1990 

Year 

2000 2010 2020 

Fig. 1. Scenarios for the global production of CFC-11 (Left) and CFC-12 (Center) and mixing ratios [Right; in ppt (part per trillion)] for the period 1960–2020. 

Scenarios include the baseline scenario and those of the worlds avoided with the early warning of Molina and Rowland (MR74) and with the adoption of the 

Montreal Protocol (NMP87). The shaded regions for MR74 and NMP87 reflect a range of 3–7% and 2–3%, respectively, for the assumed annual production 

increases in ODSs. The stripes in the shaded regions indicate the larger uncertainties past 2010. The average annual growth rate in global production between 

1960 and 1974 was 17% for CFC-11 and 12% for CFC-12. Current total annual emissions of CFCs are 10% of late 1980 values. The baseline scenario represents 

ODS emissions observed up to 2004 and as projected past 2004 assuming global compliance to the latest provisions of the Montreal Protocol. The emissions up 

to 2004 are derived primarily from atmospheric observations of ODS concentrations (4) and production records (13). The primary ODS compounds included in 

the scenarios presented here are CFCs, CCl4, CH3CCl3, HCFCs, CH3Cl, Halons, and CH3Br (see SI Text). 

Emissions (ktCFC-11-eq yr -1 ) 

6000 

4000 

2000 

ODP-weighted emissions 

0 

1960 1970 1980 1990 

Year 

2000 2010 2020 

Emissions (GtCO 2-eq yr -1 ) 

40 

30 

20 

10 

GWP-weighted emissions 

2.0 

Magnitude of 

Kyoto Protocol 

reduction target 

ceptable alternative compounds and technologies (27). Starting 

in the late 1980s, when the Montreal Protocol began to take 

effect, net ODS emissions (Fig. 2) decreased, largely driven by 

reductions in CFC-11 and CFC-12 production (4, 14, 28). With 

the force of an international treaty and substantial scientific 

evidence connecting ODSs to ozone depletion, there was a rapid 

development and deployment of suitable ODS substitutes and 

not-in-kind alternatives, which steadily achieved reductions over 

the last two decades in ODS production, consumption, and 

emissions. Due to the long atmospheric lifetimes of CFC-11 and 

CFC-12, their mixing ratios are decreasing slowly after the sharp 

decreases that have occurred in their emissions (Fig. 1). 

0 

1960 1970 1980 1990 

Year 

2000 2010 2020 

Radiative forcing (W m -2 ) 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

Radiative forcing 

MR74 

NMP87 

Baseline 

CO 2 SRES 

0.0 

1960 1970 1980 1990 

Year 

2000 2010 2020 

Fig. 2. ODP-weighted emissions (Left), GWP-weighted emissions (Center), and RF (Right) for ODS and CO2 scenarios for the period 1960–2020. Calculated 

GWP-weighted emissions (100-yr time horizon) and associated RF values are shown for four scenarios: baseline, MR74, NMP87, and SRES CO2. All emissions are 

normalized by their direct GWPs to equivalent GtCO2yr 1 (see also Fig. 1 legend). The indirect contribution to the GWP due to ozone depletion, which is thought 

to be 20% (see text), is not included in these figures. The shaded regions for MR74 reflect a range of 3–7% for assumed annual production increases in CFC-11 

and CFC-12 starting in 1975 and a 3% annual increase for other ODSs starting in 1987. The shaded regions for NMP87 reflect a range of 2–3% for assumed annual 

production increases in all ODSs. The stripes in the shaded regions indicate the larger uncertainties past 2010. The CO2 emissions for 1960–2003 are from global 

fossil fuel and cement production (45). Beyond 2003, the shaded regions for CO2 reflect the maximum (A1B) and minimum (B2) SRES scenarios (25). The CO2 RF 

data are based on CO2 observations and SRES scenarios (25). All RF values represent net changes from the start of the industrial era (1750) to present. Shown 

for reference is the magnitude of the reduction target of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which is based on a 1990–2010 projection of global 

greenhouse gas emission increases and the average reduction target for participating countries (see text) (36). 

Velders et al. PNAS March 20, 2007 vol. 104 no. 12 4815 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

SCIENCES

Table 1. Direct GWP-weighted emissions and radiative forcing of ODSs and CO2 

The second scenario is the Molina and Rowland scenario 

(hereafter referred to as the MR74 scenario) representing an 

approximation to the world of ODS growth and atmospheric 

concentrations that was avoided as a result of their early warning 

and the subsequent consumer and government actions before the 

Montreal Protocol. The scenario starts in 1975 (Figs. 1 and 2) by 

increasing CFC-11 and CFC-12 in the baseline scenario with a 

3–7% range of annual growth rates. The difference above the 

baseline scenario becomes substantial quickly with a 7% annual 

growth rate causing a doubling in a decade. The 7% rate is 

significantly smaller than the reported growth rates for the 

period 1960–1974 (Fig. 1) and so could underestimate initial 

growth. The higher rate is in agreement with earlier scenarios 

(29) that used a 7% annual growth in emissions from 1980 to 

2030 and also closely resembles the growth rate in a previously 

formulated analysis using a ‘‘free market’’ scenario of ODSs (30). 

The third scenario is the No Montreal Protocol scenario 

(hereafter referred to as NMP87 scenario) representing an 

approximation to the world of ODS emissions and atmospheric 

concentrations that was avoided by the adoption of the Montreal 

Protocol provisions. The scenario starting in 1987 has ODS 

emissions increasing above the baseline values with a 2–3% 

range in annual growth rates. Historical studies (1, 2, 31, 32) have 

typically assumed that annual growth rates of up to 3% would 

have occurred in the absence of the Montreal Protocol (see SI 

Text). This value is further justified by noting that a 3% annual 

growth occurred in ODS use as it increased after the aerosol 

emission bans (1, 2) and that 3% is comparable to the historical 

and expected growth rates of mature markets such as refrigeration, 

air conditioning, foam production, and solvents (5, 33, 34); 

such markets typically grow at about the rate of growth in gross 

domestic product. Furthermore, the annual growth in 2002–2015 

in the demand for CFCs, HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), 

and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) for refrigeration, air conditioning 

and foams is estimated to be 2.8% in the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual scenario (5). 

In addition, rapid growth in ODS use in developing countries 

and new markets (e.g., self-cooled beverage containers) could 

have increased growth above this range. 

The MR74 and NMP87 scenarios are presented as simple 

estimations of the worlds avoided by events and regulation to 

examine the basic consequences for climate protection. To help 

indicate that the uncertainty in these scenarios increases with 

time after the initial year due to unknowable factors, the scenario 

shadings in Figs. 1 and 2 are changed after 2010. In using these 

scenarios, we acknowledge that others could be proposed. For 

example, we do not take into account the possibility that 

production of ODSs could have been reduced without the early 

warning and without the Montreal Protocol, due to precautionary 

climate protection. Our scenarios show what could have 

happened without any further national regulations, international 

agreements, or public actions. 

Radiative Forcing in ODS Scenarios 

The effects of ODS regulations on climate are evaluated by 

comparing GWP-weighted ODS emissions and RF values re- 

GWP-weighted emissions, 

GtCO2-eqyr 1 Radiative forcing (Wm 2 ) 

Scenario 1975 1988 2010 1975 1988 2010 

Baseline 7.2 9.4 1.4 0.12 0.26 0.32 

MR74 7.6 12–18 24–76 0.12 0.30–0.34 0.8–1.6 

NMP87 7.2 9.6 15–18 0.12 0.26 0.60–0.65 

CO2 17 22 29–35 0.94 1.25 1.8 

sulting from these emissions (Fig. 2 and Table 1) with the 

corresponding values for anthropogenic CO2 emissions as derived 

from observations and the IPCC Special Report on Emissions 

Scenarios (25, 35). GWP weighting is used routinely to 

evaluate the relative climate impact of emissions of various gases 

(by mass) and is the basis for emission targets under the Kyoto 

Protocol (36). The GWPs of the principal ODSs range between 

5 (methyl bromide) and 11,000 (CFC-12), much larger than that 

of CO2 (CO2 weighting is unity). The relative importance of the 

accumulation of greenhouse gases for climate change is evaluated 

by using the metric of RF, defined as the difference from 

the start of the industrial era (1750) (25). 

Additional factors to be considered in scenario comparisons of 

emissions or RF are the offsets related to stratospheric ozone 

depletion from ODSs and the use and emissions of fluorocarbon 

substitute gases as discussed below. An important assumption in 

these comparisons is that, except for use of non-ODS fluorocarbon 

substitute gases, the ODS reductions did not lead to 

increases in other greenhouse gas emissions. For example, 

because energy efficiency regulations have not been related to 

regulatory or voluntary actions to reduce use of ODSs, it is 

assumed that impacts on CO2 emissions due to changes in the 

efficiency of energy intensive products using ODSs would have 

been minimal. 

The GWP-weighted emissions comparisons in Fig. 2 and Table 

1 allow a direct comparison of the climate influences of ODSs 

and CO2. In the baseline scenario, the annual contribution of 

ODSs to GWP-weighted emissions peaked in 1988 at a value 

slightly less than half that of global CO2 emissions. After 1988, 

the contribution of ODSs falls sharply in contrast to increasing 

CO2 emissions. By 2010, ODS emissions will have declined to 

4–5% of Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) CO2 

emissions, which are projected to increase to 29–35 GtCO2eqyr 

1 . In contrast, without the early warning of the effects of 

CFCs (MR74 scenario), estimated ODS emissions would have 

reached 24–76 GtCO2-eqyr 1 in 2010. Thus, in the current 

decade, in a world without ODS restrictions, annual ODS 

emissions using only the GWP metric could be as important for 

climate forcing as those of CO2. In the NMP87 scenario in which 

ODS increases occur later than in the MR74 scenario, the ODS 

emissions reach 15–18 GtCO2-eqyr 1 in 2010, about half of the 

CO2 annual emissions. Furthermore, the contribution of ODS 

emissions (in GtCO2-eqyr 1 ) in NMP87 is 11–13 times larger in 

2010 than in the baseline scenario. 

A RF time series depends on atmospheric concentrations and, 

hence, is not a simple scaling of the associated GWP-weighted 

emissions time series. As shown in Fig. 2, the RF from ODSs 

peaks in the baseline scenario around 2003 at a value of 0.32 

Wm 2 and decreases slowly by a total of 0.005 Wm 2 by 2010. 

Over the same period, RF values for CO2 are expected to 

increase by 0.2 Wm 2 to 1.8 Wm 2 . In the world avoided of 

MR74, the ODS RF ranges from 45% to 90% of the CO2 value 

in 2010 (Table 1). In the NMP87 scenario, the ODS RF is in a 

lower, narrower range near 35% of the CO2 value in 2010. The 

emissions avoided under the protocol (NMP87) will have re- 

4816 www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0610328104 Velders et al.

Table 2. Scenario differences and offsets for 2010 

Parameter 

GWP-weighted emissions, 

GtCO2-eqyr 1 

Radiative 

forcing, Wm 2 

NMP87 minus baseline 13.3–16.7 0.28–0.33 

Ozone depletion offset 2.7–3.3* 0.06 

HFC offset 0.9 0.02 

Net value † 9.7–12.5 0.20–0.25 

*Estimated as 20% of ODS GWP-weighted emissions, based on RF value (see 

text). 

† Reductions attributable to the Montreal Protocol provisions after accounting 

for offsets due to ozone depletion and HFC increases. 

duced the RF of climate by 0.3 Wm 2 in 2010, which is 17% 

of the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 increases in 2010. 

The MR74 projection that ODS RF could almost have matched 

that of anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 is a striking result considering 

that the RF of anthropogenic ODSs was essentially zero in 1960. 

However, because the length of time associated with this projection 

(1974–2010) increases the level of uncertainty, the results must be 

interpreted with care. A more certain result is that, using the 

NMP87 scenario, the Montreal Protocol will have reduced RF from 

ODSs by 50% in 2010 (Table 2). 

The RF scenarios in Fig. 2 illustrate the extent to which ODSs 

reductions, in effect, have delayed the growth of overall anthropogenic 

RF. A delay is a form of climate protection, because more 

time is required to reach any given anthropogenic RF increase and 

its associated climate change risk (37). The delay is expressed here 

as the years required for the CO2 RF to increase by the same 

amount as the ODS RF would have by 2010 in MR74 or NMP87. 

When using an averaged CO2 RF growth rate, the MR74 delay is 

calculated to be 13–18 or 31–45 yr, corresponding to the 3% and 7% 

annual growth rates, respectively. Similarly, the delay attributable to 

the Montreal Protocol (NMP87) is calculated to be 7–12 yr. 

Ozone Response 

Increasing ODSs in the atmosphere creates, in addition to the direct 

positive RF response, an indirect negative (cooling) RF response 

Emissions (GtCO 2-eq yr -1 ) 

4 

3 

2 

1 

2.0 

Emissions 

Magnitude of 

Kyoto Protocol 

reduction target 

1.2 

Magnitude of 

possible additional 

emission reductions 

by 2015 

0 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

Year 

2030 2040 2050 

due to the associated depletion of stratospheric ozone (38, 39). In 

the IPCC evaluation (25) the ozone offset of 0.15 0.1 Wm 2 

represents a large fraction of the ODS RF. However, it is currently 

estimated (37) that the observed changes in stratospheric ozone in 

2000 contributed a globally averaged RF of 0.06 Wm 2 , which is 

20% of the direct positive RF. Although the true magnitude 

might be larger, the updated value is likely more accurate than 

larger previous values (25). In the worlds avoided based on the 

MR74 and NMP87 scenarios, stratospheric ozone depletion and its 

associated negative RF now would be substantially larger than 

current levels. However, the response of ozone depletion to increasing 

ODS concentrations would plausibly be less than currently 

observed (see SI Text). As a result, a 20% offset is a reasonable first 

approximation to the ODS RF and GWP-weighted emissions 

presented here (see Table 2). 

The emissions of ODS substitute gases that occur in response to 

Montreal Protocol provisions generally have the potential to reduce 

or offset the climate protection of those provisions. It is important 

to note that 80% of ODSs that would be used today without the 

Montreal Protocol have been successfully phased out without the 

use of other fluorocarbons. Instead, this ODS use was eliminated 

with a combination of ‘‘not-in-kind’’ chemical substitutes, product 

alternatives, manufacturing-process changes, conservation, and doing 

without (7, 27). HCFCs and HFCs are among the fluorocarbons 

used as substitutes (17, 23, 27) (Fig. 3), because HCFCs have lower 

ozone depletion potentials than the CFCs and HFCs do not destroy 

ozone. Because HCFC emissions and their RF values are included 

in the baseline scenarios, increases in HCFC use associated with 

Montreal Protocol provisions do not represent offsets to the 

reductions in CO2-eq emissions and RFs derived here for the MR74 

and NMP87 scenarios. 

HFCs are not controlled by the Montreal Protocol because 

they do not destroy ozone but are included in the Kyoto Protocol 

because they are greenhouse gases. The Montreal Protocol has 

resulted in increased uses and emissions of HFC-134a, as the 

primary alternative to CFC-12 refrigerant, and emissions of 

HFC-23, which is an unwanted byproduct of HCFC-22 production. 

Because HFC-134a has a lower GWP than CFC-12, the 

direct substitution on a mass basis increases climate protection 

relative to the NMP87 scenario. Use and emissions of other 

Radiative forcing (W m -2 ) 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

Radiative forcing 

All ODSs 

HCFCs only 

HFCs IPCC 

HFCs SRES 

0.0 

1990 2000 2010 2020 

Year 

2030 2040 2050 

Fig. 3. GWP-weighted emissions (Left) and RF (Right) scenarios for all ODSs, HCFCs, and HFCs for the period 1990–2050. Calculated GWP-weighted emissions 

(100-yr time horizon) and associated RF values for all ODSs from Fig. 2 are shown on an expanded scale. Additional curves show the contribution of the HCFCs 

and the growth of HFCs according to an IPCC business-as-usual scenario (5) and as in the older and more uncertain SRES A1B and B1 scenarios (25). All emissions 

are normalized by their GWPs to equivalent GtCO2yr 1 . Under the controls of the current Montreal Protocol, developed countries will step-down HCFC use by 

99.5% by 2020, with phase-out in 2030, while developing countries are allowed to increase HCFC use until 2016 and then continue at that level until phase-out 

in 2040 (8). Shown for reference are the magnitude of the reduction target of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (see Fig. 2 legend) and the 

magnitude of possible additional emission reductions in ODSs and HFCs achievable by 2015. All RF values represent net changes from the start of the industrial 

era (1750) to present. The HFC RF contribution is 0.02 Wm 2 in 2010, which is small compared with the other scenario differences discussed here. The HFC 

data before 2000 are based on observed concentrations (5). 


ENVIRONMENTAL 

SCIENCES

HFCs as substitutes for HCFCs have been increasing since 1990. 

The IPCC business-as-usual (5) estimate of HFC emissions in 

2010 is 0.9 GtCO2-eqyr 1 (Fig. 3). Comprehensive estimates 

of ODS emissions or RF reductions from worlds avoided must 

take HFC emissions into account as an offsetting factor (Table 

2). For the NMP87 scenario, the emissions and RF offsets are 

both 10%. When combined with the offsets from ozone 

depletion, these offsets amount to 30% of the direct positive 

forcing of ODSs in 2010. 

The Kyoto Protocol 

The Kyoto Protocol (26) aims, in its first commitment period, to 

reduce CO2-equivalent emissions in 40 countries (Annex-1 parties) 

by 2008–2012. The agreed upon reductions will occur in 

emissions of six key greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, 

PFCs, and SF6) referenced to a 1990 baseline. It is widely 

acknowledged that the first commitment period of the Kyoto 

Protocol is only a first step to obtain the objective of the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; namely, 

‘‘stabilization of greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere 

at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 

interference with the climate system.’’ The adopted CO2equivalent 

emission reduction target is 5.8% (range of 10% 

to 8% for the individual countries), corresponding to 0.97 

GtCO2-eqyr 1 by 2008–2012 (36). Because most countries 

would normally have had increasing greenhouse gas emissions 

after 1990, it can be argued that the emission reduction necessary 

to achieve the agreed Kyoto target must be calculated from a 

business-as-usual scenario between the 1990 baseline and 2008– 

2012. Projections (36) have total greenhouse gas emissions of 

Annex-1 parties increasing by 6% (1.06 GtCO2-eqyr 1 ) above 

the 1990 value by 2010. The 6% value reflects large increases in 

developed countries (e.g., United States of America, 32%; Spain, 

47%) offsetting large decreases for countries with economies in 

transition (e.g., Russia, 19%; Estonia, 57%). Therefore, an 

arguably more realistic estimate of the greenhouse gas emission 

reduction that will have occurred by meeting the first Kyoto 

Protocol target is found by combining the 5.8% decrease and 6% 

increase for a total of 2 GtCO2-eqyr 1 . And finally, we note 

that those countries without emission targets in the Kyoto 

Protocol (non-Annex-1) accounted for 41% of reported (36) 

global greenhouse gas emissions in 1994. 

Over the Kyoto Protocol period (1990–2010), the reduction in 

GWP-weighted ODS emissions expected with compliance to the 

provisions of the Montreal Protocol is 8GtCO2-eqyr 1 (baseline 

scenario for 1990 minus 2010). This reduction, most of which has 

already occurred, is substantially greater than the first Kyoto 

reduction target even after accounting for an offset of 30% due 

to ozone depletion and HFC emissions (Table 2). The ODS 

emissions remaining in 2010 are expected to be equivalent to 1.4 

GtCO2-eqyr 1 and to decrease steadily in the following decades 

under existing Montreal Protocol provisions (Fig. 3). 

In assessing the avoided worlds of the MR74 and NMP87 

scenarios in the 1990s and beyond, it must be realized that 

without the Montreal Protocol most ODSs would have almost 

certainly been included in the Kyoto Protocol because of their 

large GWPs, affecting the provisions and timing of the Kyoto 

Protocol. Waiting to regulate ODSs with the Kyoto Protocol 

would likely have resulted in a delay in achieving what the 

Montreal Protocol is expected to achieve by 2010. A delay could 

be expected because Kyoto Protocol regulations likely would 

have entered into force when ODS uses and emissions were 

larger than in the early 1990s, making reductions economically 

and practically more difficult. 

The Future 

New scenarios for future ODS regulation in addition to the 

baseline scenario have been formulated because parties to the 

Montreal Protocol have acknowledged interest in increasing its 

dual benefit to ozone and climate protection. The parties first 

considered this in 1999 when the Kyoto Protocol had been signed 

but had not yet entered into force (40). During diplomatic 

meetings and in decisions, parties to the Montreal Protocol have 

considered options to further mitigate ozone depletion while 

incidentally reducing climate forcing. Some important examples 

are the following: (i) further acceleration of the HCFC phase-out 

(8, 41) and use of low-GWP substitutes; (ii) collection and 

destruction of ODSs contained in ‘‘banks’’ of old refrigeration, 

air conditioning equipment, and thermal insulating foam products 

(8, 42, 43); and (iii) formulation of the technical and 

economical feasibility of further reducing overall ODS emissions 

(5). Reductions in the emissions of compounds with already 

declining emissions or expected phase-outs in the coming decades, 

e.g., CFCs and HCFCs, will generally be less effective than 

those for compounds with increasing concentrations or growing 

emissions (see SI Text). 

An acceleration of the phase-out of HCFCs might increase the 

use of HFCs as substitutes, which, at least partly, would offset the 

benefits from such an acceleration. In order for an acceleration of 

an HCFC phase-out to increase climate protection, lower-GWP 

refrigerant systems would need to be developed and widely used 

and/or refrigerant containment and service practices would need to 

be improved to reduce emissions in these systems, and the energy 

efficiency of the systems would need to be maintained or improved. 

The alternatives currently being used to replace HCFC-22 are HFC 

blends with higher GWPs. However, driven by regulation (44) in 

Europe that will phase out refrigerants with a GWP of 150 in 

mobile air conditioning over the period 2011–2017, companies have 

explored the use of CO2 and HFC-152a as a refrigerant for mobile 

air conditioning (5). More recently, chemical companies (see 

www.ineosfluor.com/ArticleText.asp?ID269, www.honeywell- 

.com/sites/sm/chemicals/genetron, and www.refrigerants.dupont- 

.com/Suva/enUS/index.html) have announced new low-GWP fluorocarbon 

alternatives to replace HFC-134a in mobile air 

conditioning. If this new technology can be leveraged to other 

refrigerant and foam expansion applications, then an accelerated 

HCFC phase-out and its associated climate benefits would be more 

easily achieved. 

Based on considering overall emissions in refrigeration and 

foams developed for an IPCC mitigation scenario (5), CFC and 

HCFC emissions could be reduced by 0.12 and 0.34 GtCO2eqyr 

1 , respectively, in 2015 compared with 2002, with associated 

additional reductions of 0.30 GtCO2-eqyr 1 in HFC-23 emissions 

released as a byproduct of HCFC-22 production. These possible 

emissions reductions would derive mainly from better containment 

in refrigeration and destruction of ODS banks. Detailed scientific 

and technical assessments could provide policymakers with information 

necessary to fine-tune an accelerated HCFC phase out to 

allow desirable uses of HCFCs, such as a feedstock for fluoropolymers 

and in other applications where emissions are near zero or 

there are overriding energy efficiency benefits. Additional HFC 

emission reductions (5) of 0.44 GtCO2-eqyr 1 in 2015 compared 

with 2002 could be achieved by a transition to alternative chemicals 

that are safer to both the ozone and climate. Thus, plausible 

scenarios exist and have been considered that could achieve reductions 

in CO2-eq emissions of ODSs and alternative gases by 2015 

(see Fig. 3) that are significant compared with the reduction target 

of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol of 2 

GtCO2-eqyr 1 . 

We thank Daniel Albritton, Marco Gonzalez, Michael Prather, Madhava 

Sarma, Susan Solomon, and Donald Wuebbles for comments and 

suggestions on the manuscript. The views presented here are the views 

of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the 

organizations where they are employed. 

4818 www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0610328104 Velders et al.

1. World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring 

Project (1995) Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994 (World Meteorological 

Organization, Geneva), Report 37. 










5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel (2005) Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the 

Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons 

(Cambridge Univ Press, New York). 

6. Molina MJ, Rowland FS (1974) Nature 249:810–812. 

7. Andersen SO, Sarma KM (2002) Protecting the Ozone layer: The United Nations 

History (Earthscan, London). 

8. United Nations Environment Program (2003) Handbook for the International 

Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (Ozone Secretariat, United 

Nations Environment Program, Nairobi, Kenya). 

9. Farman JC, Gardiner BG, Shanklin JD (1985) Nature 315:207–210. 

10. Solomon S, Garcia RR, Rowland FS, Wuebbles DJ (1986) Nature 321:755–758. 


Project (1988) Report of the International Ozone Trends Panel (World Meteorological 


12. Rowland FS (2006) Philos Trans R Soc London B 361:769–790. 

13. United Nations Environment Programme (2005) Production and Consumption 

of Ozone Depleting Substances under the Montreal Protocol 1986–2004 (Ozone 

Secretariat, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya). 

14. Solomon S (2004) Nature 427:289–291. 

15. Newchurch MJ, Yang E-S, Cunnold DM, Reinsel GC, Zawodny JM, Russell 

JM, III (2003) J Geophys Res 108:4507. 

16. Wigley TML (1988) Nature 335:333–335. 

17. Fisher DA, Hales CH, Wang W-C, Ko MKW, Dak Sze N (1990) Nature 

344:513–516. 

18. Ko MKW, Dak Sze N, Molnar G (1993) Atmos Environ 27A:581–587. 

19. Solomon S, Daniel JS (1996) Climatic Change 32:7–17. 

20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1990) Scientific Assessment of 

Climate Change—Report of Working Group I (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, 

UK). 

21. Hansen J, Lacis A, Prather M (1989) J Geophys Res 94:16417–16421. 

22. den Elzen MGJ, Swart RJ, Rotmans J (1992) Sci Total Environ 113:229–250. 

23. Kroeze C, Reijnders L (1991) Sci Total Environ 111:1–24. 

24. Ramanathan V (1975) Science 190:50–51. 

25. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Climate Change 2001: The 

Scientific Bases: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ Press, 

Cambridge, UK). 

26. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997) Kyoto 

Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

27. McFarland M (1999) Applications and Emissions of Fluorocarbon Gases: Past, 

Present and Prospects for the Future (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The 

Netherlands). 

28. Montzka SA, Butler JH, Elkins JW, Thompson TM, Clarke AD, Lock LT 

(1999) Nature 398:690–694. 

29. Wuebbles DJ (1983) J Geophys Res 88:1433–1443. 

30. Prather M, Midgley P, Rowland FS (1996) Nature 381:551–554. 

31. National Academy of Sciences (1979) Causes and Effects of Stratospheric Ozone 

Reduction (Natl Acad Sci, Washington, DC). 

32. National Academy of Sciences (1982) Causes and Effects of Stratospheric Ozone 

Reduction: An Update (Natl Acad Sci, Washington, DC). 

33. Hammitt J, Camm F, Connell PS, Mooz WE, Wolf KA, Wuebbles DJ, Bamezai 

A (1987) Nature 330:711–716. 

34. Clodic D, Palandre L (2004) Determination of comparative HCFC and HFC 

emission profiles for the foam and refrigeration sectors until 2015. Part 1: 

Refrigeration emission profiles (ARMINES, Paris). 

35. Nakićenović N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory 

K, Grübler A, Jung TY, Kram T, et al. (2000) IPCC Special Report on Emissions 

Scenarios (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK). 

36. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2005) Greenhouse 

gas emissions data for 1990–2003 submitted to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (Climate Change Secretariat, Bonn, Germany), 

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/keyghg.pdf. 

37. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Nazarenko L, Lacis A, Schmidt GA, Russell R, 

Aleinov I, Bauer M, Bauer S, et al. (2005) J Geophys Res 110:D18104. 

38. Lacis AA, Wuebbles DJ, Logan JA (1990) J Geophys Res 95:9971–9981. 

39. Ramaswamy V, Schwarzkopf MD, Shine KP (1992) Nature 355:810–812. 

40. United Nations Environment Programme (1999) Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel Report of the HFC, PFC Task Force: The Implications to the 

Montreal Protocol of the Inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol 

(Ozone Secretariat, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya). 


Assessment Panel Report of the HCFC Task Force (Ozone Secretariat, United 

Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya). 


Assessment Panel Report of the Task Force on Destruction Technologies (Ozone 

Secretariat, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya). 


Assessment Panel Report of the Task Force on Collection, Recovery and Storage 

(Ozone Secretariat, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya). 

44. European Commission (2006) Directive 2006/40/EC of the European parliament 

and of the council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air-conditioning 

systems in motor vehicles and amending council directive 70/156/EEC. 

45. Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ (2006) Global, Regional, and National CO2 

Emissions (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN), http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/ 

emcont.htm. 


ENVIRONMENTAL 

SCIENCES

Winners: 

Best Newspaper or Magazine Article 

‘‘Pour preserver la couche d’ozone et attenuer les changements climatiques nocifs 

Planetaires’’ by Hoedanou Kokouvi Yao, Journalist for Togo Presse, published 19 January 

2007. 

‘‘DENR issues more rigorous penalty against ODS trade’’ by Melody M. Aguiba, Philippines, 

published 1 August 2007 at the Manila Bulletin Nation’s Leading Newspaper. 


Texte du 19 janvier 2007 Poste Icon 1 

Pour préserver la couche d’ozone et atténuer les 

changements climatiques nocifs planétaires 

Des mesures concomitantes s’imposent à tous les 

pays du monde 

L’ozone est une couche stratosphérique qui 

protège les êtres vivants, des rayonnements 

ultraviolets nocifs du soleil. Sa protection est de 

facto, synonyme de la protection de la vie sur 

terre. Soucieux des dangers de la destruction de 

cette couche, déjà entamée par les actions 

humaines, la communauté internationale a signé, le 

22 mars 1985, la Convention de Vienne pour la 

protection de cette couche, suivie le 16 

septembre 1987, de la signature du Protocole de 

Montréal, qui vise une élimination progressive de 

Substances Appauvrissement l’Ozone (SAO) d’ici 

l’an 2010. 

Malheureusement, des preuves scientifiques ont 

montré que les mesures prises pour ralentir la 

déperdition de l’ozone ont une incidence sur le 

réchauffement de la planète. D’où la nécessité 

d’adopter des mesures concomitantes pour freiner 

les deux phénomènes dans la fabrication des gaz. 

Dans cette lutte environnementale, où en est-on 

concrètement aux plans international et national ? 

Le pari, peut-il être gagné ? 

Les chlorofluorocarbures (CFC), les 

hydrofluorocarbures (HFC), les hydrocarbures 

perfluorés, etc. sont des gaz stables, non toxiques, 

ni corrosifs, inflammables et à usages multiples, 

indispensables surtout dans la réfrigération, la 

climatisation, les aérosols, les solvants, etc. 

Cependant, à cause de leur stabilité, ils restent 

très longtemps dans l’atmosphère et se propagent 

vers la stratosphère, se décomposent pour détruire 

les molécules d’ozone qui protègent la planète Terre 

et tout ce qui y vit. Ce qui a conduit les 

gouvernements à réglementer la production et 

l’utilisation de ces produits en vertu du Protocole 

de Montréal adopté en 1987. Des amendements dudit 

protocole ont permis de les remplacer par de nouvelles 

substances en vue d’entreprendre l’élimination 

progressive des Substances Appauvrissant l’Ozone 

(SAO). Alors que l’on met au point diverses 

techniques pour remplacer ces SAO, il est apparu 

que certaines mesures visant à ralentir la déperdition


de l’ozone, en particulier le recours aux HFC et 

au PFC, ont une incidence sur le réchauffement et 

le refroidissement de la planète. 

Le phénomène de changements climatiques 

Les changements climatiques sont des variations 

significatives de l’état moyen du climat ou de sa 

variabilité, persistant pendant de longues périodes. 

Ils peuvent être attribués à une activité humaine 

altérant la composition de l’atmosphère mondiale. 

Il a été identifié que les Chorofluorocarbures 

(CFC) et les autres Substances Appauvrissant la 

couche d’Ozone ont un impact négatif sur le 

système climatique. Certaines mesures prises pour 

ralentir l’appauvrissement de la couche d’ozone 

contribuent à augmenter le réchauffement et le 

refroidissement planétaire. 

Ce réchauffement provoqué par les SAO et le 

refroidissement associés à la perte d’ozone surtout 

dans les pôles sont deux mécanismes distincts qui 

ne se compensent simplement l’un l’autre. Par 

exemple, dans les zones tropicales de la Bolivie, les 

glaciers-réservoirs d’eau ont commencé à se fondre, 

bouleversant la vie des êtres vivants. L’action 

engagée au titre du protocole de Montréal pour 

l’élimination progressive des SAO doit se 

poursuivre jusqu’à enrayer totalement ces 

antagonismes. 

Solutions envisagées 

Il s’avère donc nécessaire de procéder à une 

évaluation scientifique des relations entre la 

couche d’Ozone et les changements climatiques et 

de fournir des informations pratiques devant aider 

à adopter des solutions de protection de la couche 

d’Ozone sans altérer le climat. 

A cet effet, une conférence internationale sur les 

changements climatiques s’était tenue, du 6 au 17 

novembre 2006, à Nairobi au Kenya. Le mobile de 

cette rencontre était de trouver des mesures ou 

des mécanismes d’adaptation au changement 

climatique et de la protection de la couche d’Ozone. 

Pour le président suisse Moritz Leuenberger, en 

guise de palliatif, il y a lieu de créer une taxecarbone 

fondée sur les émissions de CO2 des 

individus et entreprises. « Je propose que nous 

considérions une taxe internationale sur le CO2 

basée sur le principe pollueur-payeur et dont les


revenus seront affectés à des mesures d’adaptation 

au réchauffement », a-t-il déclaré, oubliant de dire 

que l’appauvrissement de la couche d’ozone 

provoque un forçage du changement du climat. Alors 

que des scientifiques de la NASA et de 

l’Administration des études Océaniques et 

Atmosphériques (NOAA) ont constaté que le trou 

de la couche d’ozone dans la région polaire de 

l’hémisphère sud a établi, en 2006, un nouveau 

record de superficie et de profondeur. 

Pour l’ex-secrétaire général de l’ONU, M. Kofi 

Annan, l’engagement des Etats à prendre en compte 

le facteur climatique dans leur politique de 

développement doit être rigoureux. Les effets du 

changement climatique et de la destruction de la 

couche d’ozone étant fortement imbriqués, à quoi 

servira cet engagement si les substances (produits) 

de lutte n’arrivent pas à contenir les deux 

mécanismes ? 

Le défi au plan international 

Au niveau international, des rencontres se multiplient 

pour trouver des mécanismes concomitants 

d’adaptation aux phénomènes de la protection 

d’Ozone et les changements climatiques. La plus 

récente est la 18 e réunion des parties au Protocole 

de Montréal, tenue du 30 octobre au 3 novembre 

2006 à New Delhi en Inde. Au cours de ces assises, 

les débats avaient porté sur les mécanismes 

d’élimination des SAO en stock, au regard des 

dispositions du Protocole de Montréal. Les 

mécanismes de financement dudit protocole et les 

défis auxquels doivent faire face les pays en 

développement avaient été aussi évoqués. 

Par ailleurs, la réunion s’est penchée sur la 

synergie entre le phénomène des changements 

climatiques et la destruction de la couche d’ozone. 

Cet élan offre une gamme de projets dont 

l’exécution permettra de diminuer les effets de 

réchauffement planétaire des CFC et de leurs 

produits de remplacement. A cet effet, la 

communication annuelle des données sur les SAO 

s’avère indispensable pour permettre d’apprécier 

l’évolution de leur consommation de par le monde, 

et d’être fixé sur la quantité mondiale restant à 

éliminer. 

Le Protocole de Montréal est un défi mondial qui 

ne doit pas échouer. Tous les pays du monde 

doivent le ratifier et respecter ses clauses, car la


protection de la couche d’ozone et le changement 

climatique ne doivent pas être une question de 

frontières. 

La politique nationale 

Le Togo a ratifié la Convention de Vienne et le 

Protocole de Montréal en 1991. Traduisant sa 

volonté de se conformer à ces dispositions, le 

gouvernement a pris des mesures pour réglementer 

le processus d’élimination des substances altérant 

la couche d’ozone et les équipements les contenant. 

Des arrêtés ministériels, interministériels, ainsi que le 

Règlement Communautaire de l’UEMOA ont été 

signés et adoptés, pour harmoniser et réglementer 

l’importation, la réexportation, la commercialisation 

de ces SAO. Par exemple, l’article premier du 

chapitre 1 de l’arrêté interministériel N° 3 

MERF/MCITDZF/MEFP du 20 mai 2003 stipule : 

« Toute opération d’importation et de réexportation 

des substances altérant le couche d’ozone est 

soumise à la détention d’un agrément et à l’obtention 

d’une autorisation préalable et d’une licence 

d’importation ». Par ailleurs, des campagnes de 

sensibilisation et d’information du grand public et 

des opérateurs économiques ont été organisées, 

ainsi que des ateliers de formation des acteurs du 

secteur du froid et des agents des douanes. 

Malgré ces mesures, des gaz frelatés continuent 

de circuler librement sur le marché togolais, et 

certains ont été d’ailleurs saisis par l’équipe de 

contrôle du Bureau National Ozone (BNO-Togo) et 

présentés lors d’une conférence de presse, le 27 

décembre dernier à la Chambre du Commerce et 

d’Industrie du Togo à Lomé. 

Au point de presse, le directeur de 

l’Environnement, M. Bougonou Djéri-Alassani a 

informé les journalistes, le public et les frigoristes 

qu’un appareil de test est disponible à la douane, 

au niveau du syndicat des frigoristes et au Centre 

National de Perfectionnement Professionnel. Suivant 

toujours ses explications, les gaz autorisés sont 

R134 a, R404a et R600a. 

Pour le coordonnateur du BNO-Togo, M. 

Domèpha Kossi Amona, il est indispensable de 

renforcer la campagne nationale du public, notamment 

le milieu scolaire, et de doter suffisamment les 

douaniers des moyens efficaces de contrôle pour


qu’ils soient en permanence sur le terrain. 

L’exécution des derniers projets du Plan de Gestion 

des Fluides Frigorigènes et la mise en œuvre du 

Plan d’élimination des SAO ne sont pas du reste. 

C’est pourquoi, dans sa communication lors de la 

18 e réunion des Parties à New Delhi, le ministre 

Okoulou-Kantchati de l’Environnement et des 

Ressources forestières a attiré l’attention des 

responsables du Secrétariat du Fonds Multilatéral 

sur la nécessité de renforcer ce Fonds et de le 

maintenir au-delà de 2010, afin « d’éviter à l’humanité 

un péril, aux conséquences imprévisibles, et de 

garantir aux générations présentes et futures, un 

environnement sain ». 

Les efforts déployés pour la sauvegarde de la 

couche d’ozone sont louables, quand bien même 

la lutte n’est pas encore gagnée. C’est une 

course de longue haleine. Les échéances fixées dans 

le cadre du Protocole de Montréal pour le gel et 

la réduction de la production et de la consommation 

des SAO sont respectées. Les pays développés qui 

sont les producteurs et les plus gros consommateurs, 

ont mis fin à l’utilisation de ces substances, sauf 

pour des cas exceptionnels, notamment la fabrication 

des produits pharmaceutiques qui nécessitent des 

dérogations spéciales. 

Pour les pays en développement, la promotion 

de partenariat entre les parties et l’amélioration 

des capacités de lutte de ces pays sont indispensables 

pour la victoire finale. Ceci à travers une 

collaboration sincère entre les différents acteurs. 

Vincent K. HOEDANOU

DENR issues more rigorous penalty against ODS trade 

By Melody M. Aguiba 

August 1, 2007 

The government is issuing rigorous penalty regulations against illegal trade of ozone 

depleting substances (ODS) in an aim to totally eliminate consumption of ODS in 

anticipation of the ozone’s healing. 

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is expected to issue the 

Omnibus Guidelines that will impose penalties on the sale, storage, possession, use, 

manufacture, transport, and trading of ODS. 

Katherine D. Pine, officer of the Philippine Ozone Desk-Project Evaluation and Monitoring 

Office, said the guidelines may be released this month. 

“Even possession of the substances will be penalized under the guidelines. We hope this 

will address illegal trade,” she said in an interview. 

The Philippines has a commitment by 2010 under the 189-party Montreal Protocol to 

totally eliminate consumption of ODS particularly the most popular chlorofluorocarbons 

(CFC), also called freons used in refrigeration, air-conditioning, and foams. 

Penalties to be imposed under the guidelines include confiscation and up to P50,000 fine, 

depending on the number of offense, for ODS importation without DENR permits and for the 

sale and use of small disposable containers of less than one kilo with CFCs. 

For back conversion or the charging with CFC a system designed for non-CFC, up to 

P50,000 fine will be slapped on violators. 

The DENR has embarked on a more intensive elimination of ODS as these substances are 

also greenhouse gases that contribute to the global warming threats. Besides, experts 

predicted the ozone’s healing perhaps in the middle of this century with ODS phase-out 

commitments. 

DENR just put up in Muntinlupa pilot Refrigerant Reclamation Facility where traders and 

end-users of CFCs can turn over their used refrigerants. 

The facility enables CFC’s recovery and thus stops its release to the atmosphere which is 

believed to have caused the large ozone hole atop the Antarctic, allowing harmful ultraviolet 

rays to pass through and potentially cause skin cancer and eye cataract on human. 

Teresita A. Peralta, POD chief, said DENR is also engaging pharmaceutical companies like 

Glaxo Smithkline and United Laboratories in a dialogue on the elimination of the use of CFC 

in metered dose inhalers (MDIs). CFCs are used as propellants in sprays for the release of 

medical treatments used by asthma or pulmonary patients. 

Except for suspected cases of ODS smuggling, the country has achieved a certain success in 

its ODS elimination. Importation of CFCs in 2006 hit only 681. MT, half of its 1, 60 MT 

allowable use. With such reduced import (as the country only imports and does not 

manufacture CFC), the country is confident of totally effacing CFC use by 2010. 

To further curb ODS smuggling, DENR partnered with the Bureau of Customs, Philippine 

National Police-Maritime Group, Philippine Navy, Philippine Coast Guard, Philippine Ports 

Authority, and the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority. 


But since smuggling occurs due to traders’ and users’ preference to use CFC which is 

cheaper than non-ODS alternatives, Montreal Protocol proponents had financed shifting to 

these alternatives. 

Peralta said the Multilateral Fund financed the country’s ODS elimination program with a 

total of $11. 71 million as assisted by the World Bank and the Swedish International 

Development Cooperation Agency. 

Out of a targeted voucher issuance of ,000, DENR had so far released 2,500 vouchers that 

enabled ODS users to shift to more nature-friendly substances. 

The vouchers enabled enterprises engaged in refrigeration and air conditioning (RAC) and 

mobile air conditioning (MAC), which take up the substantial 75 percent in CFC 

consumption, to buy systems using CFC alternatives up to a grant of P120,000. 

The grant includes purchase of CFC recycling machine, recovery cylinder, vacuum pump, 

portable leak detector, vacuum meter, electronic weighing scale, nitrogen regulator with 

gauges, and electronic thermometer. 

Earlier, DENR penalized at least two companies for CFC illegal trade. Violating company 

Fairweather Sales was ordered to re-export CFCs while Britches Trading is re-auctioning 

seized CFCs. 

Government has been monitoring CFC importation as against consumption in order to 

monitor smuggling. 

It is now verifying whether the reduced number of registered companies engaged in ODS 

trade (since certain consumption is still allowable for CFC up to 2010 while other ODS use 

has further extension beyond 2010) in 2007 reflects the real situation. 

Under the proposed guidelines, DENR can impound ODS upon reasonable ground 

involving the trade, storage, possession, manufacturing, and transport without a permit or a 

Chemical Control Order from DENR. 

People obstructing arrest, subpoena, or prosecution of violators and the failure to report 

records required under Republic Act (RA) 6969 or the Toxic Chemicals, Hazardous, and 

Nuclear Wastes Control Act will also be penalized. 

The P50,000 fine will likewise be slapped on the use of CFC 11 as blowing agent for foam 

manufacturing, intentional release of ODS when servicing equipment, flushing with ODS, 

and hampering the entry of authorized representatives in premises storing ODS. 

The use of CFCs in mobile air conditioners initially in vehicles registered since 1999 and 

then on all vehicles by 2012 will be fined with up to P50,000. 


For Further information Contact: 

The Ozone Secretariat 

P.O. Box 30552-00100 Nairobi, Kenya 

Tel: (254) 762 3885 / 48 

Fax: (254) 462 4691 / 2 / 3 

E-mail: ozoneinfo@unep.org 

Web: http://ozone.unep.org or 

www.unep.ch/ozone

Awards Book - Ozone Secretariat - UNEP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?