Which one of the following is associated with the issue of control and phasing out of the use of ozone-depleting substances?

Defines the Montreal Protocol as the treaty specifically designed to reduce production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances to protect the ozone layer.

A student can contrast this explicit ODS mandate of Montreal with the mandate of Kyoto to infer which treaty is relevant to ODS control.

States the Montreal Protocol phases out production of substances believed responsible for ozone depletion and lists its revisions focused on ozone protection.

Use this example of an ODS-focused treaty to test whether Kyoto contains similar phase-out obligations (if not mentioned, likely not ODS-focused).

Describes the Kyoto Protocol as the instrument that operationalizes the UNFCCC by committing industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Since Kyoto is explicitly about greenhouse gases, a student can infer Kyoto's primary scope differs from ozone-depleting substances and check for explicit ODS references (absence would be telling).

Labels the Kyoto Protocol as the major international effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with quantified targets for industrialized countries.

A student can use this clear GHG focus to argue Kyoto's subject-matter is climate gases not ODS, and then verify which treaty addresses ODS (i.e., Montreal).

Separately lists Montreal (1987) as reducing CFCs (ODS) and Kyoto (2005 entry) as committing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, placing the two treaties in different issue-areas.

A student could map treaty purposes from this snippet onto a simple classification (ozone protection vs climate change) to judge whether Kyoto is likely associated with ODS phase-out.

Explicitly states the Nagoya Protocol is about access to genetic resources and fair/equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation.

A student could use this to infer Nagoya's subject-matter (biodiversity/genetic resources) and thus judge it unlikely to be the treaty that phases out ozone-depleting substances.

Describes the Nagoya Protocol creating legal certainty and incentives to conserve and sustainably use genetic resources (focus on biodiversity, benefit sharing).

Combine this purpose with knowledge of environmental treaty topics to separate biodiversity/access regimes from ozone-protection regimes.

Defines the Montreal Protocol as the international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out production of many ozone-depleting substances.

Use this to identify which protocol actually addresses ODSs, allowing a student to contrast Montreal with Nagoya and test the statement.

Notes that the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol amended it to phase out HFCs, reinforcing Montreal as the instrument for phasing out specific atmospheric substances.

A student could extend this to map which named protocols/amendments deal with atmospheric/ODS issues versus those dealing with biodiversity (Nagoya).

Describes national rules and deadlines for phasing out various ozone-depleting substances, showing domestic implementation of ozone-related regulation linked to the ODS regime.

A student could infer there is an established ODS regulatory regime (linked to Montreal) distinct from protocols about genetic resources like Nagoya.

States the Bretton Woods Conference (1944) created IMF and IBRD and was about post‑war international monetary and financial order.

A student could contrast the 1944 monetary/financial focus and date with the known timeline of ozone policy to judge whether Bretton Woods was the forum for ODS control.

Reiterates Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank) and emphasizes economic/financial mandate of that conference.

Use this institutional mandate to infer that environmental treaty activity (like ODS control) would more likely arise from environmental conventions rather than Bretton Woods economic institutions.

Describes the Montreal Protocol (opened for signature 1987) as the international treaty designed to phase out substances that deplete the ozone layer.

Compare the Montreal Protocol’s explicit ozone focus and 1987 date to Bretton Woods’ 1944 date to suspect different origins and forums for ODS phase‑out.

Notes Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol phased out HFCs and that CFCs were discontinued under the Montreal Protocol.

Use this example of successive ozone agreements/amendments to show that ODS control is handled by the Montreal Protocol process, not by Bretton Woods institutions.

Shows national regulatory rules and timelines (India’s ODS Regulation and Control Rules, phase‑out deadlines) implementing ODS phase‑out under environmental law.

A student could extend this to note that ODS phase‑out occurs via environmental treaties and national regulations, supporting the idea that a monetary conference would not be the controlling forum.