Daily report for 4 November 2025

After falling behind schedule on Monday, delegates quickly caught up and managed to finish the first reading of all agenda items on Tuesday morning. Contact groups met in the afternoon and evening, including on national and regional initiatives to support the implementation of the Kigali Amendment, feedstock uses of controlled substances, lifecycle refrigerant management, and regional atmospheric monitoring. In the afternoon in plenary, delegates discussed conference room papers (CRPs), including on enhancing regional atmospheric monitoring, emissions of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-23, and ensuring the viability of Montreal Protocol operations.

Preparatory Segment

Terms of Reference for the Study on the 2027‒2029 Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (MLF): Contact group Co-Chair Ralph Brieskorn (Netherlands) reported back on the group’s Monday night meeting and requested more time. 

Enhancing Regional Atmospheric Monitoring of Controlled Substances: Based on discussion on Monday, the EU introduced UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/CRP.3, consisting of a draft decision to continue the evaluation of potential monitoring stations by identifying infrastructure and existing stations in and around the 10 locations identified by the Advisory Committee. During the afternoon plenary, BRAZIL, CANADA, and KENYA requested clarifications, including on reference to “prioritization of locations” and to the 10 sites identified by the Advisory Committee. Delegates agreed to establish a contact group, co-chaired by Alain Wilmart (Belgium) and Sophia Anselm-Larocque (Dominica).

The contact group met in the evening and exchanged views on monitoring sites’ selection and the time needed for a first assessment of the identified sites. Moving to CRP-based discussions, delegates mainly worked on clarifying the meaning of monitoring regions and locations.

Accumulation of Refrigerant Gases Nearing the End of their Life Cycles in Article 5 Parties: Shontelle Wellington (Barbados), Co-Chair of the Preparatory Segment and Open-ended Working Group (OEWG), introduced this item and delegates agreed to establish a contact group co-chaired by Morane Godfrin (France) and Sergio Merino (Mexico).

In the contact group, CUBA, for the proponents of the CRP, reminded delegates that the purpose of the decision is to give the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) a mandate to conduct a study on the accumulation of inventories of refrigerant gases nearing the end of their life cycles, particularly in cases where there is no alternative but to destroy them.

On the proposal to request the TEAP to estimate global quantities, delegates extensively discussed whether to refer to “used” and/or “unwanted” refrigerants containing controlled substances. Some delegates raised concerns about the meaning of “unwanted,” with others providing examples of previous decisions using the term.

One delegate stressed the lack of global information, noting that reporting inventories only applies to Article 5 Parties. TEAP noted that modeling can be conducted to estimate global quantities, conceding that the result will have uncertainties.

Contact group Co-Chair Godfrin reported back to the afternoon plenary, requesting more time.

Feedstock Uses of Controlled Substances: Co-Chair Wellington introduced this item referring to a CRP (Draft Decision C in UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/3) and delegates agreed to establish a contact group, co-chaired by Liana Ghahramanyan (Armenia) and Morgan Simpson (UK). INDIA requested more time for the Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee (MCTOC) to present findings in the 2026 Quadrennial Assessment Report, including on circumstances in Article 5 countries. SAUDI ARABIA urged that discussions be based on science rather than politics and cautioned against new obligations for developing countries.

In the contact group, the EU and SWITZERLAND presented a revised, streamlined version of their CRP, addressing concerns from Parties. The revisions allow for more time for analysis by the TEAP, alignment with the 2026 Quadrennial Assessment Report, and a request to the TEAP to develop scenarios on the impact of feedstocks. The TEAP confirmed the issue is already in its workplan for 2026.

Some delegations objected to the burden of providing additional information and emissions data. One delegate also questioned the purpose of the proposal, given the Protocol exempts feedstocks used in the manufacture of other chemicals. The proponents emphasized the voluntary nature of the information to be provided by countries and recalled recent findings that emissions appear to be significantly higher than previously assumed.

Contact group Co-Chair Ghahramanyan reported back to the afternoon plenary, requesting more time. A procedural discussion ensued in plenary about the text used in the contact group, with SAUDI ARABIA, KUWAIT, and BAHRAIN questioning consideration of text amended outside the contact group. The EU and SWITZERLAND agreed to go back to the original proposal and make any changes in the contact group.

Halon 1301 and Other Fire Suppressants: Co-Chair Wellington introduced this item and delegates agreed to establish a contact group co-chaired by Jana Mašíčková (Czechia) and Juan José Galeano (Argentina).

National and regional initiatives to support the implementation of the Kigali Amendment: Annie Gabriel (Australia), Co-Chair of the Preparatory Segment and OEWG, introduced this item and delegates agreed to establish a contact group co-chaired by Mariska Wouters (New Zealand) and Camilla Noel (Vanuatu).

In the contact group, the Co-Chairs conducted an initial exchange of views on the CRP (Draft Decision E in UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/3). Some delegates asked the proponents to clarify the expected outcomes of the CRP, its importance, and the three substantive components: asking Parties and stakeholders to submit reports on the implementation of the Kigali Amendment; holding a workshop before MOP 38 (or OEWG 48) to share information and experiences on existing centers of excellence; and approaches in promoting sustainable cooling and cold chains. Some Parties expressed skepticism about the workshop, especially in a limited funding scenario. One delegate pointed out that the Secretariat should not be requested to provide a synthesis of national reports. Another proposed considering a declaration marking the 10th anniversary of the Kigali Amendment. The Co-Chairs asked the proponents to work further on the CRP.

Contact group Co-Chair Wouters reported back to the afternoon plenary, requesting more time.

TEAP Organizational Issues: Options for the Organization of the TEAP and its Technical Options Committees (TOCs): Co-Chair Gabriel introduced this item. The US proposed to continue discussions in an informal group, which was agreed.

Changes in the Membership of the TEAP: Co-Chair Wellington informed delegates that four nominations had been received to date and asked Parties for additional nominations as soon as possible. Delegates agreed to address the nominations and prepare a CRP in an informal group.

Further Strengthening Montreal Protocol Institutions: Co-Chair Wellington informed that a note was available on the informal meeting on facilitating implementation of the Montreal Protocol held on the Sunday before MOP 37 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/7). The EU stressed the need for streamlining and strengthening licensing systems and announced the submission of a CRP, which was introduced during the afternoon plenary (UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/CRP.4).

 The EU suggested continuing discussions in a contact group. ARMENIA proposed expanding the scope of the contact group to also address the other issues discussed during the informal meeting: illegal trade, data collection and reporting systems, and capacity enhancement.

CHINA queried how the draft decision would help Parties implement their obligations under the Protocol and expressed concerns about the necessity of establishing a contact group. BANGLADESH noted that the Protocol only requests the establishment of licensing systems without imposing particular requirements on the Parties.

COLOMBIA, noting that they have a national import license system for controlled substances established by law, expressed concern about reducing licensing systems to just a template.

Delegates agreed to establish an informal group co-facilitated by Sandrine Benard (Norway) and George Chaumba (Zimbabwe) to discuss a way forward.

Compliance and Data Reporting (Implementation Committee): Co-Chair Gabriel introduced this item and UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/CRP.1. Martijn Hildebrand (Netherlands), President of the Implementation Committee (ImpCom), reported on the ImpCom’s work during its 74th and 75th meetings on Parties’ compliance issues. He noted nine draft decisions for MOP 37 consideration, addressing:

• reporting of data and information provided by the Parties, noting Armenia, Comoros, Iceland, and São Tomé and Príncipe had not reported their data for 2024 by 31 October 2025;
• adherence by Libya to the commitments under its plan of action to return to compliance with HFC control measures;
• non-compliance issues by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mali, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tajikistan, and Zambia;
• status of the establishment of licensing systems, noting that Djibouti, Oman, and San Marino have not yet reported; and
• requests for the revision of baseline data by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Guinea, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Morocco, Nauru, Nigeria, Niue, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

OMAN said they had notified the Secretariat regarding their licensing system, to which the Secretariat responded that the information was received after the ImpCom held its last meeting. Delegates engaged in a lengthy discussion on whether to remove Oman from the list of countries and eventually agreed on their removal after the Secretariat explained that there is no specific deadline for submissions and that the notification does not need any data assessment by the ImpCom.

COMOROS noted they had already submitted their national data. Co-Chair Gabriel highlighted that their situation is different since national data submission has a deadline, thus the Party could not be deleted from the draft decision.

Delegates agreed to forward the updated draft decisions to the High-level Segment (HLS) and include in the meeting report the caveats made by the US and the EU around the narrow scope for making changes to Parties’ compliance status in the ImpCom draft decisions.

Status of Ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol: Co-Chair Gabriel introduced this item, noting that 169 parties had ratified the Kigali Amendment as of 31 October 2025, which is 29 parties short of universal ratification. She called for those countries who had not yet done so to ratify as soon as possible. The draft decision was forwarded to the HLS.

Other Matters: The US introduced UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/CRP.6, co-sponsored by Norway, on ensuring the viability of Montreal Protocol operations. They emphasized the proposal’s timeliness and intent to initiate a strategic conversation of the future without prejudging the outcome. The draft decision includes a single operative paragraph calling for a Secretariat report “on the options for making changes to, and associated cost estimates of” timing, Secretariat support, length of meetings, and timing of replenishment decisions. NORWAY stressed the need to ensure the Protocol’s sustainability. CANADA, AUSTRALIA, and JAPAN supported the proposal while stressing the need to avoid prejudging.

KUWAIT said that references to changes were “unacceptable” and, with SAUDI ARABIA and BAHRAIN, objected to the timing of the proposal. LEBANON cautioned against impacts on Article 5 Parties. INDIA, SENEGAL, and CHINA called for further clarity and discussions.

A contact group, co-chaired by Alessandro Giuliano Peru (Italy) and Carmen Rivero (Argentina), was set up with a mandate to discuss all queries and concerns before tackling the proposed text.

HFC-23 Emissions: The US responded to questions about their HFC-23 emissions, noting that emissions have decreased significantly since they ratified the Kigali Amendment in October 2022. CANADA introduced UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/CRP.5, co-sponsored by the EU, Norway, and Switzerland. NORWAY and the EU noted that Parties remain far from understanding the underlying causes of the emissions discrepancies, which is of great concern. INDIA, supported by the US, BHUTAN, SENEGAL, and CHINA, called for continuing discussions.

Delegates agreed to establish a contact group, co-chaired by Heidi Stockhaus (Germany) and Leslie Smith (Grenada).

In the Breezeways

When the ImpCom presented its nine draft decisions on compliance issues in plenary, one stood out: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. For the first time since the non-compliance procedure was adopted in 1998, the ImpCom recommended the suspension of the rights and privileges of a Party to the Protocol related to trade of the substances that are the subject of non‑compliance.

There are three measures that the MOP can take with respect to non-compliance: (a) appropriate assistance to help the Party; (b) issuing cautions; or (c) suspension of specific rights and privileges under the Protocol.

While no one spoke out against this draft decision in plenary, there may be further informal discussions in the breezeways. Whether the HLS adopts the draft as currently written, or some Parties propose amendments, this recommendation, in response to years of non-compliance with regard to hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) production and consumption, “is still historic,” one seasoned participant observed. Another mused whether the “clear escalation away from collaborative ‘feel good’ approaches to hard sanctions” would actually ensure the Montreal Protocol’s continued success.