Global Environment Facility investments in the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances

  • Robert K. DixonEmail author
Original Article


Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens human health and the global environment. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) set aggressive timelines for countries to phase-out products and organic chemicals that were causing rapid ozone depletion in the Antarctic stratosphere. The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, is the largest multilateral funder of environmental protection projects and provides financial support for implementation of the Montreal Protocol. This paper summarizes GEF investments to address ozone-depleting substances (ODS) in Countries with Economies in Transition (CEITs), presents case studies from representative countries, and discusses lessons learned. Complementing the work of the Multilateral Fund that supports developing country Parties of the Montreal Protocol, the GEF provides financial support to CEIT’s to address ODS phase-out targets and timelines. These investments include technology development and transfer, outreach and training, institution building, and programs to phase-out ODS. Working with partners in the public and private sectors, the GEF has allocated approximately US$210 million, leveraging another US$250 million in co-financing, for 28 ODS phase-out projects in 18 CEITs. GEF ODS project investments in CEITs have contributed to Protocol success by phasing-out 20,000 ozone depletion potential (ODP) Megagrams (Mg) of consumption and 29,000 ODP Mg of production. Among the GEF’s most significant efforts to eliminate ODS are projects that transfer technologies and strengthen institutional capabilities of partner countries. These projects have enabled the installation of non-ODS technologies, adoption of best practices by the private sector, and provided CEITs with the legislative and policy framework necessary to sustain ODS phase-out. Almost 25 years after its establishment, the Montreal Protocol with support from financial mechanisms such as the GEF, is a successful model for addressing global environmental challenges.


Countries with economies in transition Global environment facility Montreal Protocol Stratospheric ozone 



L. Granier, I. Sow, M. Bailey, A. Jones, and J. Brinch contributed to prior drafts of this paper.


This analysis and presentation does not represent the technical or policy views of the Global Environment Facility, its agencies or its members.


  1. Agee MD, Fah KC (1995) Social discount rates from stratospheric ozone control. Econ Rec 71:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alavanja MCR et al (2003) Use of agricultural pesticides and prostate cancer risk in the agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol 157:800–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson SO, Zaelke D (2003) Industry Genius: Inventions and People Protecting the Climate and Fragile Ozone Layer. Greenleaf Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson SO, Sarma KM (2002) Protecting the Ozone Layer: the United Nations History. Earthscan Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson SO, Sarma KM (2009) The Montreal Protocol HCFC Challenge: Opportunity for Another Success, OzonAction: Building on the Montreal Protocol, 2010 and Then. UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson SO, Sarma KM, Taddonio KN (2007) Technology Transfer for the Ozone Layer: Lessons for Climate Change. Earthscan Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Benedick R (1998) Ozone Diplomacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, New Directions in Safeguarding the PlanetGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixon RK, Scheer RM, Williams GT (2011) Sustainable energy investment: contributions of the Global Environment Facility. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 16:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desombre ER, Kauffman J (1996) The Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund: Partial Success Story. In: Keohane RO, Levy MA (eds) Institutions for Environmental AID: Pitfalls and PromiseGoogle Scholar
  10. Fahey DW (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
  11. GEF (Global Environment Facility) (2009a) Cleaning Up: Ridding the World of Dangerous Chemicals. Global Environment Facility, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. GEF (Global Environmental Facility) (2009b) GEF Impact Evaluation of the Phase-Out of Ozone-Depleting Substances in Countries with Economies in Transition, Vol 1: Theory of Change. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. GEF (Global Environmental Facility) (2009c) GEF Impact Evaluation of the Phase-Out of Ozone-Depleting Substances in Countries with Economies in Transition, Vol 2: Country Reports. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. GEF (Global Environment Facility) (2010a) Investing in the Phase-Out of Ozone Depleting Substances: The GEF Experience. Global Environment Facility, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. GEF (Global Environment Facility) (2010b) Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies: Case Studies from the GEF Climate Change Portfolio. Global Environment Facility, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Green BA (2009) Lessons from the Montreal Protocol: Guidance for the next international climate change agreement. Environ Law 39:253–283Google Scholar
  17. Halon Alternatives Research Corporation (HARC) (2010) Ozone Layer & Halons.
  18. 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 ChangeGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorentzen G, Pettersen J (1993) A new, efficient and environmentally benign system for car air conditioning. Int J Refrig 16:4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luecken DJ, Waterland RL, Papasavva S, Taddonio KN, Hutzell WT, Rugh JP, Andersen SO (2010) Ozone and TFA Impacts in North America from Degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3-Tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), A Potential Greenhouse Gas Replacement. Environ Sci Technol 44:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molina M, Zaelke D, Sarma KM, Andersen SO, Ramanathan V, Kaniaru D (2009) Reducing Abrupt Climate Change Risk Using the Montreal Protocol and Other Regulatory Actions to Complement Cuts in CO2 Emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:20616–20621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montzka SA, Daniel JS, Cohen J, Vick K (eds) (2008) Trends in Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances, Ozone Layer Recovery and Implications for Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, AshevilleGoogle Scholar
  23. Morisette PM (1989) The evolution of policy responses to stratospheric ozone depletion. Nat Resour J 29:799–814Google Scholar
  24. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (2010)
  25. Simms H (1996) The unsheltering sky: China, India and the Montreal Protocol. Policy Stud J 24:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simms H (1995) The stratosphere’s the limit: India addresses the Montreal Protocol. Asian Surv 3:268–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Velders GJM, Fahey DW, Daniel JS, MacFarland M, Andersen SO (2009) The Large Contribution of Projected HFC Emissions to Future Climate Forcing. Proc Natl Acad Sciences 106:10949–10954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Velders GJM, Andersen SO, Daniel JS, Fahey DW, MacFarland M (2007) The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting the Climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:4814–4819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Victor DG (1999) Enforcing international law: implications for an effective global warming regime. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 10:147–184Google Scholar
  30. Zaelke D, Kaniaru D, Kruzikova E (2005) Making Law Work: Environmental Compliance and Sustainable Development, Chapter 13, Compliance and competiveness: The Porter Hypothesis? Cameron May, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Environment FacilityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations