1. MP SUCCESS Phased out 95% of ozone-depleting substances in 20 years Placed the ozone layer on a path to return to pre-1980 levels by 2065. Reduced climate emissions by a net of 135 GtCO2-eq. from 1990 to 2010. Delayed climate change by 7-12 years (and by 35-41 years if voluntary and domestic measures in the 1970s are taken into account)

2. Reason for Success Positive feedback loop between voluntary and regulatory actions Actions in progressive steps, inspired by Scientific Assessment and Technical and Economic feasibility, updated periodically

3. Voluntary Action before MP Initial Voluntary action due to -Awareness, promoted by scientists, NGOs and media, of the danger to the ozone layer -Signals from national regulations and policies that old technologies are out and those who are first with the new will win

4. Voluntary Actions Beyond Mandate of MP Facilitated by Knowledge about the alternative technologies and their feasibility through Technology panel of MP and international and national industrial Associations Availability, to developing countries, of financial and technical help from the MLF of MP to formulate country programmes and policies to promote alternatives Involvement by stakeholders like multinationals, militaries, major national companies and NGOs

5. Regulatory Action-1 International (MP) and national regulations Sent signal that ozone-safe technologies will have market Strength of signal dependent on the extent of width of consensus and depth of action In the beginning, width more important to convince all one that the important players of the world want ozone-safe technologies

6. Regulatory Action-2 ‘Start and Strengthen’- ‘Best is the Enemy of the Good’ 1987 MP had mild measures to attract all. Strengthened 6 times, each time taking into account special interests of countries. Every time not the ideal solution but attracting many so that actions started by all. The actions stimulated innovators- Resulted in better products and proved wrong projections of economic loss and bad products if ODS were not used This reduced the resistance to deeper controls

7. Regulatory Action-3 Tough features of MP Adjustment- Once a control measure is in place for an ODS, strengthening controls for that ODS decided by MOP with a prescribed majority and is binding on all the Parties Trade controls with non-Parties- no trade in ODS and no import of products with ODS and with non-complying Parties- to discourage ‘free-riders’

8. Regulatory Action -5 Assisted by TechTransfer, Multilateral Fund Tech transfer provided for in MP (no guarantee), funded by the MLF Written indicative list of incremental costs of developing countries to be met by MLF list covers costs of tech transfer, training and incremental costs of equipment Though not in the list, MLF covers National ozone units, awareness, Info, preparation of policies and regulations Knowledge Networks of NOUs and regular meetings along with developed countries

9. Unorthodox action by MOPs-MLF Finance preparation of country programs for developing countries- setting time lines for programs, many better than the mandated ones Financing of developing countries started in 1991, though control measures started in 1999. Periodical replenishment of the MLF calculated by TEAP objectively- approved by Parties without much change TEAP recommendations based on country programmes and targets

10. Unorthodox action by MOPs-MLF Governance MLF administered by 14-member Executive Committee, 7 each from developing and developed, elected by MOPs every year Chairmanship rotates between the groups MLF contributed by developed countries in ratio of UN scales MLF focal point of assistance. Bilaterals allowed to contribute up to 20% through projects but need approval by ExCom

11. Unorthodox action by MP- Assessment Panels Assessment panels reporting at least once in 4 years. Parties could express opinions but not change reports In practice, annual updating and reporting All Adjustments and amendments of MP and tech decisions on the basis of reports. Parties appoint Panel members but Members of sector Technical options committees selected by the co-chairs of the committees. based on panel reports. 6 times so far in 20 years

12. Regulation by MP Time bound control measures for all countries Developing countries are G-77 but with per-capita consumption less than some limits Developing countries given grace time Compliance of developing countries conditional on tech transfer and MLF assistance

13. Some Good points of MP not taken by Kyoto Adjustments and Trade controls with non- Parties- to discourage ‘free-riders’ Non-Compliance procedure with emphasis on assistance, then cautions and with tough action of suspension of rights (including trade) if deliberate inaction. Procedure binding every Party Governance and replenishment of MLF Independent, frequent technical advice

14. Post-2012 institutions for Climate Change A restructured GEF on the lines of MLF with mandate to promote voluntary action, in addition to mandatory targets, help prepare Country programmes with voluntary bench marks, promote action by- MNCs, major national companies, Military, Assist in awareness, information, National climate units, Knowledge networking, policies and regulations, access to alternative technology, Sector wise expert (from Industry, Academia, Government) technical committees, independent in operation. Annual reporting

15. Many Ideas on Board for Kyoto. Why post-2012? Do it Now Developed countries to continue their cuts. The voluntary commitments of developing countries can be based on no-lose, non-binding targets. Reduction of GHG emissions growth rates, Sector efficiencies Long term targets might be detrimental. Cost and potential of mitigation and the capacity of countries to respond are uncertain. Either unrealistically tough commitments or too soft ones. Follow the MP principle of start and strengthen periodically based on science and feasibility.

16. Many helpful factors for Immediate Action Many mitigation measures, that yield a good return to individuals and companies, available These also lead to less dependence on fossil fuels, access to advanced ways of using energy sources, better air quality (and thus health) and new market opportunities for industry Climate Change easy to understand by citizens