Halon management and ozone-depleting substances control in Jordan

  • Tareq K. Al-Awad
  • Motasem N. Saidan
  • Brian J. Gareau
Original Paper


The Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund is often hailed as a key component of strategies aimed at reducing the amount of ozone-depleting substances in the less-developed countries. Yet, while there are studies that exemplify how the fund has been implemented as well as the strategies that individual countries adopt, there is still a lack of academic literature about the steps taken and implemented to devise successful alternative production strategies. In this case study, we analyze Jordon’s current strategy to reduce ozone-depleting Halon 1211 and 1301, two fully halogenated hydrocarbons that are extensively used in Jordan for their exceptional fire-extinguishing characteristics. In response to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to phase out halon use, Jordan adopted a halon management program to manage the use of halons, build strategic reserves for “essential uses,” and limit the amount of these substances that are released into the atmosphere. This study presents the actual inventory data of halons in Jordan in addition to the challenges and obstacles in the halon bank management system in Jordan. Moreover, this research covers the prospects of Jordan halons banking to achieve the goal of meeting Jordan’s halons demand for essential uses up to the year 2030. To this end as well as to fulfill Jordan’s commitment to the Montreal Protocol, the research recommends finding the balance between effectively enforcing regulations against the use of ozone-depleting substances while being able to meet halons demand for the essential uses until alternatives are comparably affordable and available on the national market. The research recommends that regulations should be supported with effective governance measures to minimize the occurrences of ozone-depleting substances escaping into the atmosphere as well as to meet halons demand.


Halon Ozone Ozone-depleting substances Jordan Halogenated hydrocarbons Montreal Protocol 


  1. Al-Awad, T. (2012). Halon management in Jordan and steps for successful ozone depleting substances controlling program. Amman, Jordan: Princess Sumaya Univeristy for Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Hamamre, Z., Saidan, M., Hararah, M., Rawajfeh, K., Alkhasawneh, H., & Al Shannag, M. (2017). Wastes and biomass materials as sustainable-renewable energy resources for Jordan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Weshah, R., Saidan, M., & Al-Omari, A. (2016). Environmental ethics as a tool for sustainable water resource management. American Water Works Association, 108(3), 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, S. O. (2015). Lessons from the stratospheric ozone layer protection for climate. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(2), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen, S. O., & Sherman, N. (2015). The importance of finding the path forward to climate-safe refrigeration and air conditioning: thinking outside the box and without limits. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. Scholar
  6. Anderson, S. O., & Sarma, K. M. (2002). Protecting the ozone layer: the United Nations history. London: Earthscan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Andresen, S., & Hey, E. (2005). The effectiveness and legitimacy of international environmental institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andresen, S., Rosendal, K., & Skjærseth, J. B. (2013). Why negotiate a legally binding mercury convention? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13, 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barrett, S., & Stavins, R. (2003). Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreements. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bauer, S. (2006). Does bureaucracy really mattter? The authority of intergovernmental treaty secretariats in global environmental politics. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bauhr, M., & Nasiritousi, N. (2012). Resisting transparency: Corruption, legitimacy, and the quality of global environmental policies. Global Environmental Politics, 12(4), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benedick, R. E. (1998). Ozone diplomacy: New directions in safeguarding the planet. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Canan, P., Andersen, S. O., Reichman, N., & Gareau, B. J. (2015). Introduction to the special issue on ozone layer protection and climate change. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(2), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canan, P., & Reichman, N. (2002). Ozone connections: Expert networks in global environmental governance. New york: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  15. Dekant, W. (1996). Toxicology of chlorofluorocarbon replacements. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeSombre, E. R. (2002). The experience of the Montreal Protocol: Particularly remarkable, and remarkably particular. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 19(1), 49–81.Google Scholar
  17. DeSombre, E. R., & Kauffman, J. (1996). The Montreal Protocol multilateral fund: Partial success story. In R. O. Keohane & M. A. Levy (Eds.), Institutions for environmental aid: Pitfalls and promise (pp. 89–126). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fahey, D. W. (2006). World meteorological organization and United Nations environment programme. Twenty questions and answers about the ozone layer: 2006 Update. Panel review meeting for the 2006 Ozone Assessment.Google Scholar
  19. Gao, S. (2015). Managing short-lived climate forcers in curbing climate change: An atmospheric chemistry synopsis. Journal of Environmental Studies and Science, 5(2), 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gareau, B. J. (2010). A critical review of the successful CFC Phase-out versus the delayed methyl bromide phase-out in the Montreal Protocol. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 10(3), 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gareau, B. J. (2013). From precaution to profit: Contemporary challenges to environmental protection in the Montreal Protocol. London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gareau, B. J. (2015). Lessons from the Montreal Protocol delay in phasing out methyl bromide. Journal of Environmental Studies and Science, 5(2), 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. GIZ. (2015). Management and destruction of existing ozone depleting substances banks. Germany: Eschborn.Google Scholar
  24. Gonzalez, M., Taddonio, K. N., & Sherman, N. J. (2015). The Montreal Protocol: How today’s. Journal of Environmental Studies and Science, 5(2), 122–129. Scholar
  25. Gray, K. R. (2003). Multilateral environmental agreements in Africa: Efforts and problems in implementation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 97–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutner, T. (2005). Explaining the gaps between mandate and performance: Agency theory and world bank environmental reform. Global Environmental Politics, 5(2), 10–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hararah, M. A., Saidan, M. N., Alhamamre, Z., Abu-Jrai, A. M., Alsawair, J., & Damra, R. A. (2016). The PCDD/PCDF emission inventory in Jordan: Aqaba city. Journal of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 51(1), 112–120.Google Scholar
  28. Heggelund, G., & Backer, E. B. (2007). China and UN environmental Policy: Institutional growth, learning and implementation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 7, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Climate Change (2007). The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.Google Scholar
  30. Kamigawara, K. (2015). Comparative typological study of change in global environmental regimes. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 15, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kemp, L. (2016). Framework for the future? Exploring the possibility of majority voting in the climate negotiations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 757–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB). (2012). Halon bank annual report-2011. Jordan: Amman.Google Scholar
  33. Kuchler, M. (2017). Stakeholding as sorting of actors into categories: implications for civil society participation in the CDM. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ladly, S. D. (2012). Border carbon adjustments, WTO-law and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 12, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marchetti, R. (2012). Models of global democracy: In defence of cosmo-federalism. In D. Archibugi, M. K. Archibugi, & R. Marchetti (Eds.), Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives (pp. 22–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Matsui, Y. (2002). Some apsects of the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McEvoy, D. M. (2013). Enforcing compliance with international environmental agreements using a deposit-refund system. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ministry of Environment. (2011). Jordan’s national ozone depleting substances phase-out plan. Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
  39. Ministry of Environment. (2014). Strategic plan (2014–2016). Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
  40. Ministry of Environment. (2017). Strategic plan (2017–2019). Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
  41. Ministry of Environment (MoE). (2003). Regulations for controlling the ozone depleting substances use in Jordan, No. 4597/2003. Amman, Jordan. [in Arabic].Google Scholar
  42. Molina, M., & Rowland, F. S. (1974). Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine atom catalyzed destruction of ozone. Nature, 249, 810–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Molina, M., Zaelke, D., Sarma, K. M., Andersen, S. O., Ramanathan, V., & Kaniaru, D. (2009). Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 106, 20616–20621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Montzka, S. A., Daniel Jeff Cohen, D. J., Vick, K. (2008). Current trends, mixing ratios, and emissions of ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes, climate change science program synthesis and assessment product 2.4.Google Scholar
  45. Oberthür, S. (2001). Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto protocols. Enhancing synergies between protecting the ozone layer and the global climate. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1(3), 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oberthür, S. (2002). Clustering of multilateral environmental agreements: Potentials and limitations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2004). Reforming international environmental governance: An institutionalist critique of the proposal for a world environment organisation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 4, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD. (2001). Extended producer responsibility: A guidance manual for governments.
  49. Parson, E. (2003). Protecting the ozone layer: Science and strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pyle, J. A., Solomon, S., Wuebbles, D., Zvenigorodsky, S. (1992). Ozone depletion and chlorine loading potentials. World meteorological organization global ozone research and monitoring project–report no. 25. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.Google Scholar
  51. Ramaswamy, V., Boucher, O., Haigh, J., Hauglustaine, D., Haywood, J., Myhre, G., et al. (2001). Radiative forcing of climate change. In J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, & C. A. Johnson (Eds.), Climate change 2001: The scientific basis, contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (p. 881). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  52. Rowland, F. S., & Molina, M. J. (1975). Chlorofluoromethanes in the environment. Reviews of Geophysics, 13(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saidan, M. (2012). Sustainable energy mix and policy framework for Jordan. Amman, Jordan: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  54. Saidan, M. N., Abu Drais, A., & Al-Manaseer, E. (2016). Solid waste composition analysis and recycling evaluation: Zaatari Syrian Refugees Camp, Jordan. Waste Management. Scholar
  55. Saidan, M. N., Al-Weshah, R. A., & Obada, I. (2015). Potential rainwater harvesting: Adaptation measure for urban areas in Jordan. American Water Works Association, 107(11), 594–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saidan, M. N., Ansour, L. M., & Saidan, H. (2017). Management of plastic bags waste: An assessment of scenarios in Jordan. Journal of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 52(1), 148–154.Google Scholar
  57. Saidan, M., & Tarawneh, A. (2015). Estimation of potential E-waste generation in Jordan. Ekoloji, 24(97), 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanwal, M. (2007). Evolution of global environmental governance and the United Nations. Global Environmental Politics, 7(3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schreurs, M. A. (2005). Global environmental threats and a divided northern community. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5, 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Selin, H. (2014). Global environmental law and treaty-making on hazardous substances: The minamata convention and mercury abatement. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stemmler, K., Folini, D., Ubl, S., Vollmer, M. K., Reimann, S., O’Doherty, S., et al. (2007). European emissions of HFC-36mfc, a chlorine-free substitute for the foam blowing agents HCFC-141b and CFC-11. Environmental Science and Technology, 41, 1145–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Streck, C. (2001). The global environment facility: A role model for international governance? Global Environmental Politics, 1(2), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Swanson, T. (2001). Negotiating effective international environmental agreements: Is an objective approach to differential treatment possible? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1, 125–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tarawneh, A., & Saidan, M. (2013). Households awareness, behaviors, and willingness to participate in E-waste management in Jordan. International Journal of Ecosystem, 3(5), 124–131.Google Scholar
  65. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). (1994a). Halon management: banking for future.
  66. UNEP. (1994b). Report of the halon fire extinguishing agents, technical options committee.Google Scholar
  67. UNEP. (2000). The Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Kenya, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  68. UNEP. (2011). 2010 Report of the halons technical options committee 2010 assessment. ISBN: 9966-7319-9-7.Google Scholar
  69. UNEP. (2014). Report of the halons technical options committee. December 2014. Volume 3. 2014 supplementary report #2. Global halon 1211, 1301, and 2402 banking.
  70. UNEP Ozone Secretariat. (2004). Information provided by the parties in accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Implementation committee under the non-compliance procedure for the Montreal Protocol, Geneva 17–19 July 2003, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/32/3.Google Scholar
  71. WMO (World Meteorological Organization). (2007). Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2006. Global ozone research and monitoring project report No. 50, pp. 572. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  72. World Bank. (2010). Investing in the phase-out of ozone depleting substances: The GEF experience. Global environment facility. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  73. World Bank. (2013). Implementation completion and results report on ozone projects trust fund grant in an amount equivalent to US$6.0 Million to The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for ozone-depleting substances phase-out project. report no: ICR1985. Sustainable Development Department, Middle East and North Africa Region.Google Scholar
  74. Young, O. (2001). Inferences and indices: Evaluating the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Global Environmental Politics, 1(1), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zaelke, D., & Borgford-Parnell, N. (2015). The importance of phasing down hydrofluorocarbons and other short-lived climate pollutants. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. Scholar
  76. Zhao, J. (2005). Implementing international environmental treaties in developing countries: China’s compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Global Environmental Politics, 5(1), 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Technology and Management ProgramPrincess Sumaya University for TechnologyAmmanJordan
  2. 2.Chemical Engineering Department, School of EngineeringThe University of JordanAmmanJordan
  3. 3.Water, Energy, and Environment CenterThe University of JordanAmmanJordan
  4. 4.Department of SociologyBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations