Lessons from Montreal for Global Environmental Negotiations

The experience of addressing stratospheric ozone depletion under the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985) and the subsequent Montreal Protocol (1987) has provided an explicit model for several subsequent efforts to address global environmental challenges. Many lessons have been drawn from this experience, especially for cooperation between scientists and policy-makers. This is particularly the case for more recent global legally binding agreements (treaties) on hazardous chemicals and other toxic substances, especially the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001) and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2013). Delegates negotiating the Stockholm Convention explicitly said that it was “modeled after the Montreal Protocol” (ENB, 1999). Scientific evidence in the 2000s of the global transport of mercury provided a strong impetus for the negotiations of the Minamata Convention. The stratospheric ozone experience underscored both the importance of scientific assessments as well as leadership from individual scientific researchers: the wisdom of Solomon and others.

We compare the efforts to draw lessons from the Montreal Protocol for science and environmental policy in the Stockholm and Minamata Conventions, focusing on the ways in which scientific knowledge and leadership influenced key elements of the negotiations. We assess the relative effectiveness of different strategies for scientific input into global environmental negotiations drawn from stratospheric ozone in the three stages of cooperation: (1) agenda-setting and treaty negotiations, (2) adoption of treaty amendments and adjustments, and (3) treaty effectiveness evaluation. Data are drawn from observations and interviews at global environmental treaty negotiations and scientific assessment meetings. Specific lessons drawn from the Montreal Protocol that have been applied in the chemicals area involve the design of iterative scientific assessment processes, the roles and responsibilities of experts, and the flexible design of legal instruments. We argue that scientists and policy-makers have a mixed record of applying the lessons from the Montreal Protocol to other cases. The experience of the Stockholm and Minamata Conventions can further help refine the lessons of stratospheric ozone for application in other areas, including climate change and other global environmental challenges.

Reference: Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), 1999. Summary (POPs INC2, Nairobi Kenya). International Institute for Sustainable Development.