Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Int Env > Ozone Regime - Post-Montreal > Flashcards

Ozone Regime - Post-Montreal Flashcards

1
Q

Issues that Remained Unresolved Under MP

A
  • details of tech + financial assistance to developing countries
  • whether 50% reduction in CFCs should become complete phaseout
  • how to increase number of signatories from the original 24
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

MP Article 6 - 1988 Developments

A
  • under this Article, in 1988, Parties formed the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP), Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP), Technology Assessment Panel (TAP), + Economics Assessment Panel to inform govs on current state of relevant science + technical + economic feasibility of phasedown + phaseout schedules
  • panel assessments = key tool in evolution + responsiveness of the treaty + are published w/o gov review or modification
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

MP Article 6 - 1988 Assessment

A
  • Assessment basically showed problem was more serious than previously understood (presented first solid data linking CFCs to ozone depletion + showed much more dramatic decline in ozone levels)
    -> lots of industry actors committed to voluntary phaseouts of CFCs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

London Amendments - Major points

A
  • 1990
  • new reduction schedules
  • developing countries -> multilateral fund
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

London - Reduction Schedules

A
  • Broad consensus calling for eventual elimination of halons + CFCs
  • New goal of 50% reduction by 1995 put in place, w/ total phaseout by 2000 for CFCs + halons
  • Also instituted controls for new class of ozone depleting substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons – HCFCs)
  • also extended coverage to carbon tetrachloride + methyl chloroform (both fast phaseouts, 2000 + 2005 respectively)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

HCFCs

A
  • industry actors had initially considered these an important substitute for CFCs, but these are also ODSs (though less so than CFCs)
  • London added controls in a compromise - req to report on product, import + export, + nonbinding resolution discouraging their use by phaseout in 2040
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

HFCs

A
  • NOT addressed at London
  • concern though that the London phaseouts would be accomplished in part from reliance on HFCs, which don’t deplete ozone but ARE powerful greenhouse gases -> environmentalists thought swap was short-sighted
  • ultimately brought up again in 2008 + addressed through the Kigali Amendment ((2016)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Multilateral Fund

A
  • established through Article 10 in the London Amendments in 1990
  • provided support for incremental costs + facilitative compliance mechanism -> designed to respond to implementation challenges faced by developing countries
  • provide tech + financial assistance
  • London Ams didn’t mandate contributions to the fund
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Multilateral Fund - Governance

A
  • managed by Executive Committee of 7 developed + 7 developing country parties
    -> charged w/ supervising + administering MLF – includes reviewing all projects over $500,000, developing MLF plan + budget, monitoring its activities, developing criteria for project eval, + reporting annually to the Parties on MLF’s activities
  • parties oversee Exec Committee + make majority decisions on basis of one-country-one-vote
  • implementing agencies: UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, + World Bank
  • UNEP serves as Secretariat to Exec Committee + Treasurer to MLF
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What do countries need to do to obtain MLF assistance?

A
  • prepare Country Program study detailing their production + consumption of ODSs + a work program detailing steps for reducing ODSs (including tech assistance + pre-investment activities)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Kigali Amendment

A
  • 2016
  • phase-down ozone-safe but climate-warming HFCs
  • marked shift in focus to incorporating measures to address climate pollutants, even where don’t destroy stratospheric ozone
  • Prof noted that ability to have Kigali Amendment in some ways reinforces the importance of the Ozone Regime, although some in climate change regime weren’t happy b/c saw it as their domain
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Incremental Costs

A
  • additional costs of converting to using non-ODSs or tech that relies on them
  • incremental in the sense that you can’t ask for this money if you would have been doing what you’re doing anyway
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Tensions Surrounding MLF

A
  • some tension between recipients + those transferring funds - sense that countries giving $ are dictating how they should be developing + what they need to do (interfering w/ sovereignty)
    -> gets much more contentious in climate change context, b/c much more potential for impact on country’s development
  • chicken + egg problem - which comes first, showing of compliance or $?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Non-Compliance Procedure for Ozone Regime

A
  • gets set out in Annex IV of the Copenhagen Amendments
  • establishes Implementation Committee
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

MP Article 7

A
  • deals with reporting requirements
  • important – mechanism by which we can assess what is happening, create baselines, measure success
  • requires a lot of work + tech expertise
  • VERY big piece of int treaties
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Annex IV - 1-4

A
  • discuss communications re non-compliance
  • 1 says other parties can bring potential non-compliance to attention of Secretariat
  • 2 gives those non-compliant parties a chance to respond
  • 3 says Secretariat can draw attention to non-compliance in preparing its report (think this info goes to both Meeting of the Parties and the Implementation Committee)
  • 4 says party can draw attention to its own concerns about inability to comply w/ the protocol after its best efforts
17
Q

Annex IV - 5-8

A
  • discuss the basics of the Implementation Committee
  • 5 establishes the committee (10 Parties elected by Meeting of the Parties for two yrs, equitable geographic distribution)
  • 6 says it meets twice a yr
  • 7 sets out its functions – there are five bullet points, but essentially the main thing is that they focus on reviewing, considering, + gathering info on the potential non-compliances identified through 1-4 + then reporting it
    ->(e) also specifies that the committee maintains communication with the Multilateral Fund
  • 8 says it shall consider the submissions, observations + info from 7 w/ view to securing amicable solution
18
Q

Annex IV - 7

A

Functions of Implementation Committee:
- receive, consider + report on submissions (from 1,2,4)
- receive, consider + report on any info or observations forwarded by Secretariat
- request, through the Secretariat, further info on matters under consideration as necessary
- undertake, upon invitation of Party concerned, info-gathering
- maintain exchange of info w/ MLF Executive Committee re tech + financial cooperation, particularly re IC’s recs

19
Q

Annex IV - 9

A
  • Committee reports to the Meeting of the Parties, including any recs it considers appropriate -> Parties may then “decide upon and call for steps to bring about full compliance with the Protocol, and to further the Protocol’s objectives”
20
Q

Annex IV - 16

A
  • says info made available to any person upon request (although confidentiality of info received in confidence is protected under 15)
21
Q

Summary of Non-Compliance Mechanism

A
  • if requested by a party to conduct review, the Implementation Committee must make report w/ recs to the Meeting of the Parties, which then decides on the appropriate course of action
  • relatively non-confrontational approach (“carrots”), but w/ underlying threat of use of “stick”
  • Parties at Copenhagen agreed to Indicative List of Measures That Might Be Taken by Meeting of the Parties in Respect of Non-Compliance with the Protocol in Annex IV
22
Q

Copenhagen - List of Measures Re Non-Compliance

A

Includes:
- providing assistance
- issuing warnings
- suspending protocol privileges concerning, inter alia, industrial rationalization, production, consumption, trade, transfer of tech, Multilateral Fund, + other institutional arrangements

23
Q

Legitimacy of the Implementation Committee

A
  • should represent parties’ interests
  • Prof says size, election by parties, two-year commitments all important (on the assumption parties are invested in the success of the treaty, may influence how comfortable/uncomfortable we feel re IC holding off on sanctions)
24
Q

Copenhagen - Pros and Cons of Attitude Towards Non-Compliance

A
  • want people trying to comply + want to facilitate where possible (best interests of all = ultimately figuring out a way to reach compliance)
    ->trying to create system in which parties have incentive to participate + work w/ the implementation committee
    -> not really productive necessarily to have parties consistently treated as non-parties
  • BUT some concern of repeat player effect
  • more serious sanction will get more support broadly if they’ve tried everything first + it looks like still getting nowhere
  • may be helpful to have it as a reminder that you do need to participate (a state may have no interest in being cooperative if there’s no real threat behind it)
25
Q

Should NGOs be able to make referrals to the Implementation Committee?

A
  • may not really need a formal role - they may be supporting the work of states + the Implementation Committee anyway + may be able to influence what happens
26
Q

Ozone vs. Climate - Similarities + Differences

A
  • concept of living regime that can change - thresholds of achievability shift, pushing the boundaries
    -> distinction though - fossil fuel companies push back hard on climate change b/c kills their entire business, vs. industry actors in ozone willing to push for treaty b/c knew they could adapt to a degree
  • Montreal had identifiable consequences, ability to see change + benefits of reduction
    -> being able to identify problems + see benefit triggers support from states, industry, civil society
  • possibility of renewable energy trade system – can you broaden the grid, connect access in a way that will support the regime
  • possibly learn something from the ozone metric, making things fungible for purposes of comparison
  • technique of using incentives to be party by having a punitive effect of not being a party (translating int trade aspect into climate context)
  • consumers - pushback on ozone depleting substances -> starting to be seen more in the climate context (effectiveness of mobilizing civil society)
  • history, text of regime, importance of industry both ways + finding solutions
  • corporate interests on climate change are very different, but are there ways you can make it more comparable?
    -> concept that fossil fuel industry really can’t be trusted to engage in good faith though – decades of evidence that they pretty much ignored climate impacts for sake of own profits
27
Q

Nitrous Oxide

A
  • book noted adding this to the Montreal Protocol as a future challenge for the regime
  • Would benefit both ozone layer + climate
  • Currently the most significant unregulated ODS, + also the third-most important long-lived GHG (after CO2 + methane)
  • Proven reduction strategies – include more efficient, targeted use of agricultural fertilizer, capture + destruction of emissions from industrial processes, + improved animal + human waste practices
28
Q

Solar Radiation Management

A
  • aims to reflect sunlight back to atmosphere or otherwise manage amount of solar radiation hitting Earth -> one proposal = release of sulfates into upper atmosphere -> could harm ozone layer (need to assess under MP)
29
Q

Leadership - Ozone vs. Climate Change

A
  • Montreal involved leadership by countries w/ more resources, more contributions to the problem, also political clout
    –> we’ve seen opposite of ozone regime in the climate context – US not agreeing to Kyoto, told at subsequent meetings if you’re not going to be part of the solution you should at least not stand in the way
  • leadership from other communities – small island nations (Prof’s point that you might not necessarily expect certain parties to play a role, but wind up being leaders) - not really parallel to Montreal
30
Q

Science - Lessons from Ozone

A
  • shifting to address certain ODSs to address spillage or leakage they hadn’t yet anticipated -> importance of building a regime that responds to science (not just developing + sharing info, but navigating scientific developments + corresponding risk-risk tradeoffs)
31
Q

Structure - Ozone vs. Climate Change

A
  • ozone regime known for using targets + timetables at the international level
    -> set a limit but didn’t dictate how states needed to get there, leaving them to manage their own private entities
  • climate change similar to the extent that it leaves states control over how to reach the goals, but different to the extent that Paris Agreement doesn’t have the top-down approach of setting targets and timetables on the international stage
32
Q

Ozone - Relative Strength of Mechanisms

A
  • concept of not allowing reservations but building flexibility into the regime somewhat
  • votes binding even if not unanimity
  • still able to get participation + develop noncompliance despite this
33
Q

Lessons to Be Drawn from Development of Vienna to Montreal + Beyond

A
  • thinking about where to focus energy (ex - noncompliance - parties didn’t negotiate at Montreal so as not to get bogged down by the details)
  • concept that not everything needs to be done all at once (but flip side arg that sometimes not moving as quickly as is actually necessary)
  • optimistic take that disaggregation might make things more manageable (get industry to the table w/o big picture) but flip side that at the end of the day things are complicated

Int Env (19 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions