You are on page 1of 15

PROJECT ON

concept of global warming and relevance of


monitorial protocol

SUBMITTED
TO
Mr. rana navneet roy
(FACULTY OF environmental law)

SUBMITTED BY vivek kumar sai


ROLL NO. 146
SEMESTER Iv
Submited on: 24.11.2014

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I,

VIVEK KUMAR SAI

, feel myself highly elated, as it gives me tremendous pleasure to

come out with work on the topic CONCEPT OF GLOBAL WARMING AND RELEVANCE OF
MONITORIAL PROTOCOL.

First and foremost, I take this opportunity to thank MR. RANA NAVNEET ROY Faculty,
Environmental Law, HNLU, for allotting me such topic to work on. She has been very kind in
providing inputs for this work, by way of lectures and suggestions.
I would also like to thank my dear colleagues and friends in the University, who have
helped me with ideas about this work. Last, but not the least I thank the University
Administration for equipping the University with such good library and I.T. facilities, without
which, no doubt this work would not have taken this shape in correct time.

VIVEK KUMAR SAI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. PIL.. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. NGONON GOVERNMENTAL ORGINASATION


3. UOI..UNION OF INDIA
4. USA.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
5. SAL..SOCIAL ACTION LITIGATION
6. e.g.EXAMPLE
7. COI.CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
8. V. VERSUS
9. Ors....OTHERS
10. Art...ARTICLE
11. CNG....COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS

12. T.NTAMIL NADU


13. U.P....UTTER PRADESH

LIST OF CASES
1. M.C.Mehta v. UOI
2. Bhopal Gas Tragedy case
3. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
4. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors
5. Rylands v.Fletcher.
6. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
7. Tehri Dam case
8. Narmada Dam Case
9. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs. Stateof U.P.
10. Church of God (Full Gospel)in India vs.KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association
11. T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION....I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................................II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................III
LIST OF CASES...IV

Introduction.01
Research Methodology..
1. Public Interest Litigation.................................................................................................07

Evolution of PIL

Concept of PIL

Importance of PIL

2. PIL and Environmental Law Enforcement........................................................................08


3. Environmental Jurisprudence.............................................................................................09

Fundamental Right to Life

Applications of Environmental Principles and Doctorine

4. Role of Judiciary...............................................................................................................10
Suggestion..
Conclusion.

Refrences.........................................................................................................................11

INTRODUCTION:
The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is a landmark
agreement that has successfully reduced the global production, consumption, and emissions of
ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). ODSs are also greenhouse gases that contribute to the
radioactive forcing of climate change. Using historical ODSs emissions and scenarios of
potential emissions, we show that the ODS contribution to radioactive forcing most likely would
have been much larger if the ODS link to stratospheric ozone depletion had not been recognized
in 1974 and followed by a series of regulations. The climate protection already achieved by the
Montreal
Protocol alone is far larger than the reduction target of the first commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol. Additional climate benefits that are significant compared with the Kyoto Protocol
reduction target could be achieved by actions under the Montreal Protocol, by managing the
emissions of substitute fluorocarbon gases and/or implementing alternative gases with lower
global warming potentials.

1. CONCEPT OF GLOBAL WARMING


Global Warming, increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses of Earth. The
planet has warmed (and cooled) many times during the 4.65 billion years of its history. At present Earth appears to
be facing a rapid warming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from human activities. The chief
cause of this warming is thought to be the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, which releases
into the atmosphere carbon dioxide and other substances known as greenhouse gases. As the atmosphere
becomes richer in these gases, it becomes a better insulator, retaining more of the heat provided
to the planet by the Sun. The average surface temperature of Earth is about 15C (59F). Over
the last century, this average has risen by about 0.6 Celsius degree (1 Fahrenheit degree). Scientists predict
further warming of 1.4 to 5.8Celsius degrees (2.5 to 10.4 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100. This temperature
rise is expected to melt polar ice caps and glaciers as well as warm the oceans, all of which will expand ocean
volume and raise sea level by an estimated 9 to 100 cm (4 to 40 in), flooding some coastal regions and even entire
slands. Some regions in warmer climates will receive more rainfall than before, but soils will dry out faster
between storms. This soil desiccation may damage food crops, disrupting food supplies in some
parts of the world. Plant and animal species will shift their ranges toward the poles or to higher
elevations seeking cooler temperatures, and species that cannot do so may become extinct. The
potential consequences of global warming are so great that many of the world's leading scientists have called
for international cooperation and immediate action to counteract the problem

2. THE OZONE PROBLEM :


The ultraviolet B (UV-B) rays from sun could potentially have harmful effects on both plant and
animal life on the earth. A thin scattering of ozone (3-atom oxygen molecule) in the stratosphere
however acts as an effective filtering device and blocks the incoming UV-B rays.Since 1950s
lack of knowledge about atmospheric chemistry and processes led to a significant emission of
man-made chemicals, especially chlorine and bromine compounds, such as chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), halons, and a broad range of industrial chemicals that attack the ozone layer. These manmade chemicals when reached stratosphere are broken into highly reactive forms of chlorine and
bromine by the ultraviolet radiation and take part in a series of chain reactions leading to ozone
depletion. Hence these man-made chemicals are recognized as ozone depleting substances
(ODS). The hole created due to destruction of ozone layer leads to increased penetration of
ultraviolet radiation to the Earth surface. Increased UV-B radiation is expected to cause adverse
health effects for instance, a 1% increase in stratospheric ozone depletion is estimated to result
in a 0.6-0.8% rise in incidence of cataracts; incidence of skin cancer, especially among lightskinned populations, is likely to increase by 2% for every 1% reduction in stratospheric ozone
depletion. Small increases in ultraviolet radiation diminish the productivity of important food
crops and reduce levels of plankton in the ocean, adversely affecting marine food supplies. Due
to the fact that CFCs can remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, continued accumulations
of these chemicals pose ongoing threats, even after their use has been discontinued.

3. OZONE DIPLOMACY:
Negotiations for an international convention on the ozone problem to regulate production and
consumption of CFC started in 1981 but progressed slowly. Two broad stances could be
observed during initial negotiations with the US and its allies favoring control on CFC
consumption and the EC arguing more in favors of production control. The Vienna convention
agreed in 1985 contained only pledges for cooperation and did not include any firm reduction
targets for ODS. Subsequent negotiations however moved faster with active work by UNEP and
Montreal Protocol was agreed by the world nations in 1987. Appendix B contains the full details
of the evolution of Montreal Protocol and the following schematic time line shows various stages
of the diplomacy and other milestones related to the Montreal Protocol. It may be worthwhile to
take stock of the findings of the assessment panel that completed its study in 2002 to gain better
understanding of the success of ozone diplomacy. The main findings of the assessment panel
include:
Even with full compliance of the Montreal Protocol by all Parties, the ozone layer willremain
particularly vulnerable during the next decade or so
The global ozone layer recovery has been linked mainly to decreasing chlorine and
bromineloading. A return to pre-1980 total column ozone amounts in the Antarctic is expected
by the middle of this century. Although Arctic ozone depletion is difficult to predict, a future
Arctic polar ozone hole similar to that of the Antarctic appears unlikely
New studies continue to confirm the adverse effects of UV-B radiation on the eyes, skin, and
immune system, including cortical cataract and skin cancer
Phase-out of the ozone-depleting chemical, methyl bromide, may lead to increased use and
numbers of other pesticides which may lead to additional health risks
Climate change is likely to modify the rates of UV-induced degradation of natural and synthetic
materials

4. MONTEARIAL PHASE OUT TARGET:


As of May 2006, 189 countries have ratified the Montreal Protocol, which sets out the time
schedule to "freeze" and reduce consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS). The
Montreal Protocol requires all Parties to ban exports and imports of controlled substances to and
from non-Parties.
Production and consumption of CFCs, halons and other ozone depleting chemicals have been
phased out in industrialized countries and a schedule is in place to eliminate the use of methyl
bromide, a pesticide and agricultural fumigant. Developing countries operate under different
phase-out schedules, having been given a grace period before phase-out measures would apply to
them, in recognition of their need for industrial development and their relatively
small production and use of ODS.
Developing countries have agreed to freeze most CFC consumption as of 1 July 1999 based on
1995-97 averages, to reduce this consumption by 50% by 1 January 2005 and to fully eliminate
these CFCs by 1 January 2010. Other control measures apply to ODS such as halons, carbon
tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. For methyl bromide, used primarily as a fumigant,
developed countries froze their consumption at 1995 levels and will eliminate all use by 2010,
while developing countries have committed to freeze consumption by 2002 based on average
1995-98 consumption levels.
Perhaps the single most important measure of success, however, is the impact of the Montreal
Protocol on the health of the ozone layer. The following graph (see below) is expressed in terms
of parts per billion of ozone depleting substances in the atmosphere. It shows the exponential
increase that would have occurred without the Protocol and its Amendments (London,
Copenhagen, Beijing), slightly less alarming increases under earlier phase out strategies targeting
only some substances, and the anticipated reductions in atmospheric ODS under the
comprehensive targets ultimately agreed to by the international community. Scientific
measurements of the stratosphere have confirmed these predictions.
Despite the impressive achievements of the Montreal Protocol to date, the world is still only at
the beginning of the process. In fact, total elimination of all ODS still has several decades to go.
CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride will not be completely phased out in developing countries
until 2010. Methyl chloroform and methyl bromide will not disappear from developing countries
until 2015. HCFCs will not be phased out of developed countries until 2030 and not from

developing countries until 2040. Ultimately, it is expected that it will not be until the year 2050
that all of these phase-out initiatives succeed in reducing the amount of chlorine and bromine in
the stratosphere from 5 parts per billion to 2 parts per billion, a level comparable to that in the
1980s when the first ozone hole was detected.

5.ROLE OF MEASURE MONTERIAL PROTOCOL:


The trade measures in MEAs typically take two forms specific and non-specific. Specific trade
measures are explicitly described in the MEA and are mandatory obligations that must be applied
by the parties. Non-specific measures on the other hand are not explicitly described, but may be
applied by parties as a means of complying with their obligations or fulfilling MEA objectives.
Montreal protocol provides an example of MEA that contains both specific and non-specific
trade measures. It includes specific measures such as ban on trade with non-parties in products
controlled by the protocol and also non-specific trade measures such as labeling requirements
and taxes used by many parties in order to meet their obligations under the Protocol. Appendix C
provides details of control measures as described in Article 2 of the Protocol (general and
concerning each of the recognized ODS) and control of trade with parties and non-parties as
described in Article 4 of the Protocol. If parties to the Montreal Protocol are to meet the
requirements of the control schedules, they must implement some method of controlling imports
of ODS, as these count towards the consumption figure for the country as a whole. A wide
variety of restrictions on trade in ODS have followed from the policy regimes adopted by the
parties in their efforts to achieve phase-out. In addition to various policy instruments adopted,
and irrespective of the stage of phase-out, all parties to the Protocol are required to report data to
the Ozone Secretariat. Since most countries are not ODS producers, this requires a monitoring
and tracking system organized through customs declarations. Because the international
Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System assigned codes to chemicals according to their function rather
than chemical properties, the international Customs Cooperation Council has established a new
set of codes for monitoring ODS, with a separate number for each controlled substance.
Effectiveness of trade provisions can be assessed through two angles participation and
industrial migration. Participation in MP was significant to start with and the effect of trade
provisions in persuading the non-parties (mainly developing countries) to join the protocol .Even
though wide spread industrial migration could not be detected there were significant

instances of second-hand ODS production plants shifting to developing countries including India
(in 1988 India purchased CFC-12 plant from Allied Chemical, Canada). However, the ODS
production cap of 0.3kg per capita meant that if any developing country increased its ODS
production by allowing industrial migration it would loose its status as Article 5 country and
hence will be deprived of access to multilateral fund and technology transfer. Thus, trade
restrictions alone could not be credited with the twin aims of their use in MP namely
encouraging participation and averting industrial migration, but their presence appears to have
had significant influence in achieving these goals.
As Brack (1996) argues trade provisions were necessary but not sufficient for effectiveness of
the Protocol as financial support and technology transfer also played significant role. This aspect
is further elaborated in the section on Indian perspective

CONCLUSION:
As we approach the 20th anniversary, the global success of the Montreal Protocol stands out as
an ever-more significant landmark of international cooperation to avert severe environmental
consequences. Major challenges remain, including the final phase-outs of key chemicals that
damage the ozone layer, including the agricultural fumigant methyl bromide. In all these areas,
decisive leadership has been vital to U.S. contributions to the global success of the Montreal
Protocol. Continuing success in completing the important agenda of future work that faces the
Parties will rely just as heavily on partnerships, vision, and the willingness to make difficult
decisions and implement them rigorously.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is a landmark international
agreement designed to protect the stratospheric ozone layer. The treaty was originally signed in
1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the
production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere-chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform--are to be
phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform). Scientific theory and evidence suggest that,
once emitted to the atmosphere, these compounds could significantly deplete the stratospheric
ozone layer that shields the planet from damaging UV-B radiation. The United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) has prepared a Montreal Protocol Handbook that provides
additional detail and explanation of the provisions. (CIESIN's Thematic Guide on Ozone
Depletion and Global Environmental Change presents an-in-depth look at causes, human and
environmental effects, and policy responses to stratospheric ozone depletion.)

REFRENCES: