Published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal Vol. 22, p. 447. Copyright (c) 2003 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

In 1974, two scientists identified chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as the most serious threat to the ozone layer. Until late 1986, all the efforts to develop international cooperation failed. However, in 1987 the deadlock rapidly ended, and new international negotiations successfully yielded the Montreal Protocol, [n1] which aimed to immediately cut CFC production by half. Edward A. Parson's Protecting the Ozone Layer offers an account of the negotiation and implementation of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, from the early stages of the scientific research on ozone depletion in the 1970s up to the 1999 Beijing revisions. The book analyzes what is generally regarded as an exception to the series of unsuccessful attempts to manage global environmental risks. Moreover, Prof. Parson, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, develops a series of theoretical generalizations that are of practical significance to the management of other global environmental problems.

Although the literature addressing the protection of the ozone layer is copious, Protecting the Ozone Layer is a noteworthy publication. Significantly, it provides a thorough historical account of the debate that considers the complete lifetime of ozone as a policy issue. Furthermore, it offers a theoretical analysis that challenges the common understanding of the interplay among scientific knowledge, technological advances, policy and treaty negotiation.

Notably, the historical analysis of the debate takes into account not only the factors that materially contributed to the successful policy outcome but also those events and efforts that did not directly affect the signature of the Protocol, thus guiding the reader through the intricacies of the debate.

Although they unfold chronologically, the materials are divided [*448] by groups of issues, separating science and technology from policy and negotiation. Each theme is carefully explored, and portions of one chapter overlap chronologically with portions of other chapters. Although the reader is sometimes forced to go back several pages in order to establish direct links between policy and science, the book is accessible to non-expert readers who are interested in grasping the main themes of the debate. Appendices reporting approximately 150 interviews with participants from ten countries, the archival sources for the book, plus a general reference section, provide a gold mine for researchers.

The last chapter of the book analyzes the theoretical significance of the ozone issue by adopting a comparative static analysis. Under this approach, the author divides the time frame into three periods - deadlock, regime formation and sustained progress - and investigates the factors that made the debate move from one stage to another. He makes two novel theoretical arguments. First, Parson contends, contrary to general wisdom, that "primary scientific claims," i.e., direct results of scientific research, had little or no impact on the policy debate. In other words, the author rejects the argument that a major advance in scientific knowledge of the stratosphere and the risks of ozone loss accounts for the transition from the early deadlock to a negotiation phase. Thus, factors such as scientific literature and the general consensus of the scientific community, the availability of alternatives to ozone-depleting CFCs, scientific advances, downstream environmental effects, and leadership in the negotiations fail to explain the transition from deadlock to consensus building. Instead, Parson argues that the debate was substantially influenced by authoritative scientific assessments, i.e., "collective, deliberative processes of scientific experts reviewing and evaluating the state of scientific knowledge, and synthesizing it with a view to providing information of use to policy makers or decision-makers, typically in form of an official report, issued under the authority of some organization."[n2]

Second, Parson argues that the "adaptive management" that was devised in order to limit ozone depletion may constitute a successful model for managing future global risks. In fact, "the most important elements of the 1987 Protocol were its provisions for adapting controls in response to new information and new capabilities."[n3] [*449] Thus, periodic review of controls, the independent expert assessment panels, and the linkage between the two are key elements contributing to the success of the Protocol. Moreover, although raw scientific data and technological advances do not fully explain the transformation of the debate from deadlock to consensus, they should be taken into account in designing an institutional model for managing global issues that is adaptable to changing circumstances. Because global issues involving science and technology implicate dynamic and frequent change, decision-makers should establish a management framework that allows them to modify specific policies in response to updates in knowledge and capabilities.

In sum, the author's successful analysis of the practical significance of the ozone regime and its applicability to future global environmental problems will be particularly valuable to dispute resolution scholars, educators, environmental advocates and policy makers. Their expertise will be greatly enriched by reading Protecting the Ozone Layer.

FOOTNOTES:

n1. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Sept. 16, 1987, S. Treaty Doc. No. 10, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1987), 26 I.L.M. 1550 (entered into force Jan. 1, 1989).

n2. Edward A. Parson, Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy 263 (2003).

n3. Id. at 270.