The Montreal Protocol is often cited as the most successful multilateral environmental agreement. Can its model be replicated for climate change? Examine, with reference to the differences between the two challenges.
New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →The Montreal Protocol (1987) has phased out nearly 99% of the ozone-depleting substances (ODS) it bans. The ozone layer is now projected to recover by around 2066 over Antarctica [3]. Its institutions can be copied for climate change. The scale of the problem it solved cannot.
Why Montreal worked
- Dedicated finance: Article 10 set up the Multilateral Fund (MLF), which pays developing countries' costs of phasing out ODS [1]. UNEP says the fund "works well" and its experience could help other agreements [2].
- Binding, phased timelines: developing countries were given later deadlines than developed ones. This is an early form of differentiated responsibility.
- Science-led review: regular assessment panels allow the controls to be tightened over time [3].
Differences between the two challenges
| Dimension | Ozone depletion | Climate change |
|---|---|---|
| Source | A few chemicals and producers | Energy, industry, agriculture, transport |
| Substitutes | Ready and cheap | Costly and involve whole systems |
| Obligation | Binding phase-out schedules | Voluntary pledges (NDCs) |
| Finance | MLF pays the extra costs of switching [1] | NCQG: $300 bn floor; $1.3 tn only "called for" [4] |
| Development stake | Small | Fossil fuels drive growth and jobs |
What can be replicated
- Sector-by-sector deals: the Kigali Amendment (2016) already uses the Montreal machinery to phase down HFCs, which are greenhouse gases.
- A Montreal-style fund: India wants the NCQG delivered as grants or concessional finance [5]. That is the MLF principle of paying the extra cost.
- Clubs and partnerships: coalitions of willing countries, such as the International Solar Alliance, can build up action one sector at a time.
Limits
- The NCQG does not say how much must be public money, and it falls far short of what developing countries need [4].
- Climate action is tied up with equity and CBDR-RC (common but differentiated responsibilities), so "one schedule for all" will not work.
The Montreal model can be partly replicated, through its fund, its phased schedules and its science-led tightening. It cannot be copied whole, because climate change reaches into the entire economy. The way forward is a sector-by-sector approach backed by predictable public money, in line with CBDR-RC and SDG 13. That is how pledges can become delivery.
Sources
- 1UNEP OzonAction: About the Montreal ProtocolArticle 10 set up the Multilateral Fund
- 2UNEP: Backing the Montreal Protocol – Role of the Multilateral Fund (2022)the MLF's success and its use as a model for other agreements
- 3UN News: Ozone layer recovery is on track, due to success of Montreal Protocol (Jan 2023)about 99% of ODS phased out; recovery timeline; scientific panel review
- 4OECD: The New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance$300 bn floor and $1.3 tn aspiration
- 5PIB, MoEFCC: India's statement at COP29 (20 Nov 2024)India's call for the NCQG on grant or concessional terms
Practice
8 questions on this article
Check the answer for each question, or reveal all at once.