UN emblem
United Nations System-Wide
of the 
under the 


The Ozone Secretariat 
P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 2 62 3856/62 3851
Fax: +254 2 62 3601/62 3913 
E-mail: Ozoneinfo@unep.org 

Internet: http://www.unep.org/ozone


At its First Meeting, held in Helsinki in May 1989, the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol endorsed the establishment of, in accordance with Articles 6, the following four Assessment Panels:
- Panel for Scientific Assessment
- Panel for Environmental Assessment
- Panel for Technical Assessment, and
- Panel for Economic Assessment.
After 1990, the last two united to form the Panel for Technology and Economic Assessment. 

This meeting of the Parties also established an Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) inter alia to: 
a) review the reports of the four panels and integrate them into one synthesis report; and
b) based on a) above, and taking into account the views expressed at the First Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, prepare draft proposals for any amendments to the Protocol which would be needed, to be circulated to the Parties in accordance with article 9 of the Vienna Convention. 

The tasks undertaken by the Panels are those specified in Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol, in addition specific information requested from time to time by the meetings of the Parties. The Parties request the Panels to update their reports each four years.
The reports of the Panels are presented through the Secretariat to the OEWG for consideration and action and finally to the Meeting of the Parties. The OEWG can not change the reports. 

Organization and Dynamics

The current three Assessment Panels periodically carry out their state-of-understanding assessment charge in the following ways1

Scientific Assessment Panel: The four Co-chairs, with input from an ad hoc international steering group of researchers, plan the scope, content, and Authors of a forthcoming assessment report. The Co-chairs and the current set of Lead Authors meet to further plan and coordinate the contents of the chapters and the preparation of first drafts. The Authors are aided by contributed information from a large body of researchers world wide. The resulting drafts undergo a mail peer review (with several reviewers per chapter) and a subsequent weeklong panel review, at which the chapter conclusions are agreed upon and the Executive Summary is finalized. 

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel: The Environmental Effects Panel has 25 Panel members. They are scientists working in photobiology and photochemistry, mainly in universities and research institutes. The Panel members write the different chapters, sometimes helped by co-authors for special topics. The chapter authors review each other's chapters, and the Panel takes responsibility for the entire assessment. A draft assessment is sent out to external scientific reviewers all over the world. Between major assessments, the Panel meets at least once a year and informs the Parties about new developments.

Technology and Economics Assessment Panel: The Panel had, after 1990, five Technical Option Committees: Aerosols, Sterilants, and Miscellaneous Uses; Rigid and Flexible Foams; Halons; Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps; and Solvents, Coatings, and Adhesives. The Economics Committee was added in 1991, and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee was added in 1993. The periodic assessment reports are prepared by the standing Committees of industry, government, and academic experts and are, for the large part, reviewed by the broader technical communities. Three Co-chairs co-ordinate all Panel and Options Committee activities. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) publishes reports that include the executive summaries of the technical reports and that are reviewed internally. Furthermore, the Panel - with its 23 members from 17 countries - has become a “standing advisory group” on a large number of technical and economic issues as the Parties sought input to a growing variety of decisions. Consequently, the Panel has published annually general update reports, as well as numerous topical reports. 

The London Amendment (1990) to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer provided for the creation of a Financial Mechanism to assist developing countries. The Mechanism includes a Multilateral Fund and other multilateral, regional and bilateral co-operation. The Fund meets the incremental costs of the Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol (developing countries) to implement the control measures of the Protocol and finances all clearing house functions i.e. country studies, technical assistance, information, training and costs of the Fund Secretariat. 

The last two studies of funding requirements for the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund, for the period 1997- 19995 and for the period 2000-20026,7 were done by the TEAP as requested by the Parties in 1995 and again in 1998.8 

Work and Outputs

Scientific Assessment Panel2: Prepared a report entitled Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998. The assessment was prepared and reviewed by 305 scientists from a total of 35 countries world wide. The 1998 Scientific Assessment is the fifth in a series of assessments. It also contains a set of “Frequently Asked Questions About Ozone” aimed at the general reader.

As well, an IPCC/Montreal Protocol Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere9 was prepared by IPCC, the Scientific Assessment Panel, and experts from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It observed that global aviation could influence the ozone layer and the climate system, and the report estimated those impacts. Over 350 experts world wide had prepared and reviewed the report, which was prepared on the request of ICAO. The Scientific Assessment Panel is to continue its collaboration with IPCC on the potential impacts of the aircraft emissions on stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change.

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel3: The 1998 Report addresses the possible consequences of decreased quantities of total-column ozone, which are now observed over large parts of the globe.

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel4 and its TOCs: The 1998 report involved 230 experts from 46 countries and was organized into seven TOCs and a Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and was prepared over a two-year period, reviewed internally and not peer-reviewed.

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel has also collaborated with IPCC and published the Meeting Report of the Joint IPCC/TEAP Expert Meeting on Options for the Limitation of emissions of HFCs and PFCs.13

Synthesis Report1: In 1999, a synthesis report was prepared integrating the major findings of the full 1998 reports of the three Panels. It also commemorates a decade (1988-1999) of providing information to the Parties. The report summarizes how science, technology, economics and policy interact under the Protocol and its amendments and adjustments. This Report also lists all of the Panel reports over the decade, as well as the several hundred experts who had worked to provide the assessment reports of the three Panels.

The last Adjustments and Amendment to the Montreal Protocol adopted at the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties in Beijing in 1999 were supported by the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, the Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 1998 Assessment and the 1998 Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. The major findings and conclusions of the three Assessment Panels of the Montreal Protocol are contained in the Synthesis of their Reports. 

Future Work: The Assessment Panels will update their reports in 2002. 


In September 1997 a 10th Anniversary Colloquium was held. Entitled 'Lessons from the Montreal Protocol'10, it made the following conclusions which are of interest here:
1. The protocol acted as a stimulus to new insights in the ozone layer science and improved understanding useful in dealing with the threat of climate variability and change. Science in turn was indispensable to making progress on the Protocol.
2. The most important feature of the protocol was the innovative, dynamic and flexible arrangements that it put in place. It was designed in order to facilitate the integration of science into policy thereby allowing for adjusting phase-out schedules and controlling all ozone-depleting substances, not just those initially identified in the Protocol.
3. The importance of assessments: keeping politics at arm's length: this means not letting special economic or political interests interfere with the science. This is done by drawing on top experts and relying on extensive peer review. 

The Secretariat11,12 has identified the main lessons learned from experience as: “wide membership, the members of the Panels ensured that the research and knowledge from all areas of the world are taken into account, as equitable as possible; low cost, no consultants or consulting firms could have done this job at such low cost, members of the Panels are not paid for their time, the Parties met the expenditure for participation of developing country experts in Panel and Parties meetings, the employers of developed country experts pay for their participation; excellence, the best scientists and experts of the world; source and transfer of knowledge, the experts in the Panels from more than 80 countries were the reference points for technical, scientific and environmental knowledge for those governments, in the case of TEAP, has allowed and encouraged the transfer of knowledge from developed to developing countries; independence, the members of the Panels and TOCs had a security of tenure and were not afraid to give their opinion freely; autonomy, the Governments can nominate experts for TOCs but, they are accepted only if expertise is needed. The decision is with TOC Co-chairs in consultation with TEAP Co-chairs; cooperation and contribution, international, national agencies, governments, industry, universities, research institutions, international and national non-governmental organizations, among others; trust, the Parties did not mind unbalanced representation since they wanted only experts and not mere geographical representation; respect by Parties, no Meeting of the Parties or OEWG has disputed the scientific or technical consensus presented by the Panels and the assessment process under the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol has been a long term process.” 


According to the Scientific Assessment Panel2, “the issues of ozone depletion and climate change are interconnected; hence, so are the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Changes in ozone affect the Earth's climate, and changes in climate and meteorological conditions affect the ozone layer, because the ozone depletion and climate change phenomena share a number of common physical and chemical processes. ” For that reason the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change requested their scientific and relevant bodies and IPCC to cooperate because the issues of ozone depletion and climate change are scientifically, technically and financially interconnected.13,14 

Additional References
1. UNEP, Synthesis of the Reports of the Scientific, Environmental Effects and Technology and Economic Assessment Panels of the Montreal Protocol. A Decade of Assessments for Decision Makers Regarding the Protection of the Ozone Layer: 1988-1999, pp. 161, UNEP, 1999.
2. WMO, UNEP, NOAA, NASA, EC, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No.44, pp. 732, 1998.
3. UNEP, Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 1998 Assessment, pp. 192, UNEP, 1998.
4. UNEP, Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, 1998 Assessment, pp. 286, UNEP, 1998.
5. UNEP, Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, June 1996 Report, Part I: Assessment of the Funding Requirement for the Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Period 1997-99, pp. 162, UNEP, 1996.
6. UNEP, Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, April 1999, Assessment of the Funding Requirement for the Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Period 2000-2002, pp. 102, UNEP, 1999.
7. UNEP, Supplement to the April 1999 TEAP Replenishment Report, August 1999, Assessment of the Funding Requirement for the Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Period 2000-2002, pp. 68, UNEP, 1999.
8. UNEP, Handbook for the International Treaties for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Fifth Edition (2000), pp. 367, UNEP, 2000.
9. IPCC, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, A Special Report of IPCC Working Groups I and III, Cambridge University Press, pp. 373, WMO, UNEP, 1999.
10. Environment Canada, “Lessons from the Montreal Protocol”, 10th Anniversary Colloquium, International Advisory Committee: Pieter Aucamp, South Africa, Suely Carvalho, Brazil, John Hollins, Canada, Winfried Lang, Austria, Jan van der Leun, the Netherlands, Nelson Sabogal, Colombia; National Organizing Committee: Angus Fergusson, Sonja Henneman, Claude Lefrançois, Yarrow McConnell, Philippe Le Prestre, John Reid, Hague Vaughan, p. 7, 1997.
11. Sabogal, N., El Protocolo de Montreal , un modelo de concertación para la protección de la capa de ozono, Rev. de Relaciones Internacionales, Univ. Nacional de la Plata, Argentina, 81-87, 1998.
12. Sabogal, N., Assessments for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, In Brainstorming Meeting on Scientific Assessments for CBD, Oslo, Norway, 17-19 Nov. 1999.
13. WMO, UNEP, Meeting Report of the Joint IPCC/TEAP Expert Meeting on Options for the Limitation of emissions of HFCs and PFCs, pp.51, 1999.
14. UNEP, The Implications to the Montreal Protocol of the Inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol, pp. 203, UNEP, 1999. 


Prepared by Jan-Stefan Fritz for the Second Report on International Scientific Advisory Processes on the Environment and Sustainable Development, 2000
Return to homepage

UN System-wide Earthwatch Coordination, Geneva