THE WORLD was edging closer to international agreement on further protection
for the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer this week. Ten days of negotiations
to strengthen the Montreal Protocol are due to finish by this weekend.
As New Scientist went to press, environment ministers and senior representatives
from more than 100 countries were flying in to London for 48 hours of hard
bargaining. The outcome could be that the deadline for phasing out some
chlorofluorocarbons and halons – gases which harm ozone – is set as early
as 1997, a significant improvement on the present timetable. The politicians,
though, may settle for 2000 as the phase-out deadline.
During the preliminary sessions of the London meeting, the issue of
technology transfer to the developing world emerged as a possible stumbling
block to a final accord. Third World countries taking part in the talks,
led by China and India, are worried about the terms of any transfer and
the role and influence of the US on the executive committee which would
manage the international fund.
The US is likely to contribute 25 per cent of the fund’s initial three-year
figure of $240 million (Pounds sterling 140 million). In return for reversing
its earlier opposition to committing new money, the Bush administration
was pressing for a controlling stake in how the fund should be operated.
Third World negotiators strongly opposed the US’s stance. They also
fear that the fund would be run in a similar way to the World Bank by the
US-dominated institution. Under the compromise emerging as the politicians
took over the wrangling on Wednesday, the fund will be overseen by a 15-strong
committee made up of a chairman and representatives drawn from both the
developing and developed world.
Consensus has been achieved on phasing out five CFCs that are already
listed under the protocol by the year 2000. Ultimately, 1997 may be adopted
following strong pressure both from individual countries and from the European
Community. Halons, used in fire extinguishers, also look likely to be phased
out by the turn of the century.
On carbon tetrachloride, not included in the protocol at present, the
position was less clear-cut. Again, a phase-out by 2000 is a firm possibility.
The debate was centred on whether a freeze is possible by 1993. The other
option is a 50 per cent reduction by then, increasing to 85 per cent by
1995. On methyl chloroform, another compound which is not currently included
in the protocol, the discussion has turned to whether 50 per cent or 85
per cent reductions are acceptable by the year 2000.
As for CFC substitutes, the hydrochloro-fluorocarbons (HCFCs), which
are not ozone-benign, the most likely outcome is that they will be included
in the protocol for the first time under a special resolution covering so-called
‘transitional ozone-depleting substances’. A firm deadline for ending their
use may not be set at this stage. But industry will be given advice and
a code of practice to minimise their use.
Environmental groups lobbying at the meeting are particularly unhappy
over what they see as lenient rules for using the CFC substitutes. Even
though they are not as harmful in the long term as the CFCs, they will still
add quantities of chlorine to the atmosphere.
When the London meeting opened last week, the countries taking part
were left in no doubt over the importance of achieving a tougher agreement.
Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP),
insisted that agreement was ‘not an option, it’s crucial. We cannot afford
to fail in London, the stakes are too high.’
During the conference, delegates were able to compare notes for the
first time on the detailed costs for developing countries that are contemplating
phase-outs of CFCs and halons. The UNEP is evaluating the likely cost facing
large, medium and small-sized developing countries. Tolba expressed satisfaction
that the estimates of individual countries appear to tally with UNEP’s calculations
of what will be needed during the first three years of the fund’s existence.
Last week, the Chinese delegation estimated that the exercise would cost
just over $40 million during the first three years, in line with UNEP estimates.