Daily report for 5 November 2025

With the High-level Segment (HLS) set to begin on Thursday, delegates at the 37th Meeting of the Parties (MOP 37) to the Montreal Protocol spent Wednesday in several contact and informal groups focused on reaching agreement on draft decisions.

In a brief mid-day plenary, Co-Chairs Annie Gabriel (Australia) and Shontelle Wellington (Barbados) noted that work is intensifying, contact groups need to be held in parallel, and some groups may only have one more meeting to finish their work. In the afternoon, delegates agreed on the draft decision regarding continuing the use of halon 1301 in the aviation industry, while other contact groups slowly made their way towards the finish line.

Preparatory Segment

Terms of Reference for the Study on the 2027‒2029 Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (MLF): Co-chaired by Azra Rogović-Grubić (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Ralph Brieskorn (Netherlands), the contact group continued its work on draft decision A in UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/3. They discussed which aspects should be explicitly mentioned for the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to take into account in their Multilateral Fund (MLF) replenishment report. The group agreed to refer to earlier decisions of the MOP and Executive Committee for the MLF (ExCom), “including those relevant to Decision XXVIII/2.” However, delegates couldn’t agree on whether the “special needs” and/or “circumstances” of low-volume-consuming and very-low-volume-consuming countries should be explicitly mentioned for the TEAP’s consideration, or whether this is already included in relevant ExCom decisions.

In a second session, the group continued cleaning the draft decision text, mostly reverting to language from previous decisions. Some delegates proposed that the TEAP consider resources for digital technologies and tools, but others preferred to keep these as an exploratory approach and not go beyond approved levels of funding.

Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-23 Emissions: The contact group, co-chaired by Heidi Stockhaus (Germany) and Leslie Smith (Grenada), addressed UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/CRP.5 on HFC-23 emissions submitted by Canada, the EU, Norway, and Switzerland.

The proponents reminded delegates that the CRP aims to request the TEAP and Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) to update their reports on HFC-23 to reflect any additional or new information, to better understand the methodologies used by Parties, and to ask Parties that have not yet done so to submit relevant information.

Some delegates questioned the purpose of continuing to request updated reports and repeating the same actions. One noted that any new development can be included in the 2026 Quadrennial Assessment Report. Another cautioned against requesting actions that go beyond the scope of Decision XXXVI/3.

In contrast, other delegates stressed the significance of the global gap, emphasizing that the huge discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down results goes beyond the uncertainties acknowledged by the TEAP and SAP. One delegate added that without relevant HCFC-22 data, it is even harder to determine if HFC-23 emission levels make sense.

Further Strengthening Montreal Protocol Institutions: In informal discussions, co-facilitated by Sandrine Benard (Norway) and George Chaumba (Zimbabwe), Parties grappled with the roles of licensing, reporting, and combating illegal trade, and their interlinkages in strengthening the Protocol.

Delegates exchanged general views while striving to postpone specific comments on a submission by the EU, which focuses on licensing (UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/CRP.4). Several delegations reiterated their concern with increasing reporting burdens and linking licensing systems to compliance. Many favored a more supportive, integrated, and advisory approach, cognizant of differing national circumstances.

One delegation proposed broadening the scope of the decision to address: improved monitoring and supply-chain tracking given the growing role of e-commerce; the use of disposable cylinders; how to deal with seized material that is expensive to destroy; and enhancing Article 5 Parties’ capacity to deal with illegal trade.

Accumulation of Refrigerant Gases Nearing the End of their Life Cycles in Article 5 Parties: The contact group, co-chaired by Morane Godfrin (France) and Sergio Merino (Mexico), resumed discussion from where it left off on Tuesday, on whether they should give the TEAP a mandate to conduct a study on the accumulation of inventories of refrigerant gases nearing the end of their life cycles.

The discussion first addressed managing uncertainties in the data reported by Parties. The TEAP explained that they could estimate the global scale of refrigerant banks from Parties’ inventories, but they weren’t sure to what extent these chemicals would be reused, recycled, or destroyed, noting it relies on national circumstances.

After further discussion, the group agreed that the TEAP estimate should extend to “used and unwanted” refrigerants and the TEAP should come up with “estimates” of the potential benefits in terms of avoided ozone-depleting-potential tonnes and carbon-dioxide-equivalent tonnes associated with the reclamation and destruction of used and unwanted refrigerants.

One delegation suggested the TEAP add to their report “potential business models” as well as “policies and regulations” for how to deal with used and unwanted refrigerants.

Feedstock Uses of Controlled Substances: The contact group, co-chaired by Liana Ghahramanyan (Armenia) and Morgan Simpson (UK), discussed draft decision C in UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/3.

Several delegates expressed concerns and reservations, including on: requesting Parties to provide data on emissions that are under the scope of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); assuming that increased emissions are caused by feedstock production and use; and the rationale to request information on the production of halon 1301 as a feedstock.

Other delegates stressed the need to increase the availability of data, pointing to TEAP’s last report findings on the emissions from feedstock being higher than originally thought; and the need for a better understanding and scope of the definitions on production and consumption.

Noting that “our calculations rely on data,” the TEAP and SAP welcomed receiving any data on emissions related to feedstock processes, especially if backed up by production data.

The group agreed to delete a paragraph requesting information on ongoing and planned steps to minimize emissions of controlled substances used as feedstock, and another on supporting activities and research relating to the monitoring of emissions of feedstock substances.

Halon 1301 and its Continuing Use in the Aviation Industry: This contact group, co-chaired by Jana Mašíčková (Czechia) and Juan José Galeano (Argentina), addressed draft decision D in UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/3.

 Delegates agreed to update the preamble to reflect the outcome of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Assembly in September 2025 (resolution A42-11), which calls on the ICAO Council to develop a proposal for a revised cut-off date for halon 1301 replacements in new aircraft.

On a paragraph addressing facilitating the import and export of recovered, recycled, or reclaimed halons used for fire suppression to enable parties to meet their remaining needs, delegates discussed whether to include other controlled substances used for fire suppression. The group eventually agreed to include other controlled substances and add a footnote referencing the substances in the TEAP 2022 Assessment Report.

The group also agreed to invite Parties to submit to the Ozone Secretariat, by 31 March 2026, information on the development of acceptable and certifiable replacements for fire suppression and to request the Secretariat to forward the information received to the TEAP for inclusion at the latest in its 2027 progress report.

National and Regional Initiatives to Support the Implementation of the Kigali Amendment: During the contact group meeting, co-chaired by Mariska Wouters (New Zealand) and Camilla Noel (Vanuatu), the proponent updated their proposal to: invite Parties to submit information related to the implementation of the Kigali Amendment, and request the Secretariat to produce a background information paper based on the submissions received and use it to decide whether to organize the previously proposed workshop to share information and experiences relating to centres of excellence for sustainable cooling and cold chains.

Delegates made several suggestions in an attempt to reach agreement on the draft, including:

• ask the Secretariat to compile the submissions, make a summary of them, or to post them entirely on the Secretariat webpage, instead of preparing a background information paper;
• proceed in a step-wise manner, focusing on the request to submit information, and based on the results, decide at a future meeting on a way forward;
• convene an online activity rather than an in-person workshop; and
• discuss and exchange ideas on the topic in regional network meetings rather than a global workshop.

Despite the efforts, delegates could not reach agreement. Co-Chair Noel invited the proponents and interested Parties to conduct informal discussions.

Ensuring the Viability of Montreal Protocol Operations: The contact group met in the evening under Co-Chairs Alessandro Giuliano Peru (Italy) and Carmen Rivero (Argentina). Participants exchanged general views on a draft decision submitted by the US and Norway (UNEP/OzL.Pro.37/CRP.6).

The proponents explained their intention to present options for discussion, rather than a recommendation, addressing the timing and duration of meetings and Secretariat support. They noted that even though the Protocol has worked successfully for many years, it is useful to assess if the processes are still fit for purpose.

Some delegates argued that the Protocol’s success shows that nothing needs to be changed. Many stressed it is important not to prejudge the process or the outcome. Some cautioned against limits to developing countries’ participation; others brought up the challenges of online meetings. The Secretariat noted that it is “intense” to organize online meetings, adding that the cost for eight sessions of two hours each is USD 350,000, including translation.

Co-Chair Rivero said they will report to plenary that the group had a fruitful discussion but needs more time to explore options.

TEAP Organizational Issues: Options for the Organization of the TEAP and its Technical Options Committees (TOCs): Discussions in this informal group, co-facilitated by Cindy Cunil (Belize) and Matěj Mrlina (Czechia), consisted mainly of a question-and-answer exchange with the TEAP. Delegates asked about the TEAP’s functioning, including frequency and modalities of their meetings and those of the TOCs; related costs; and the expert nomination process. One delegation questioned the workload balance between some TOCs, for example the Methyl Bromide TOC, compared to the others.

The TEAP explained that it meets at least once per month online and three times per year in person, including in conjunction with the OEWG and MOP meetings, and that the four TOC Co-Chairs meet online as often as once a week. They noted that all this work is strictly voluntary, and it is therefore a challenge for experts to remain committed long-term, particularly those from non-Article 5 Parties. The TEAP emphasized the importance of these meetings to address the most relevant cross-cutting issues, and assured Parties of the efficient and productive functioning of the current structure. Delegates and the TEAP agreed on the need to allow the TEAP to continue its work and to further discuss this issue in light of the forthcoming TEAP progress report.

Plenary: In a brief mid-day plenary, the Co-Chairs of the contact groups that met on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning reported back on their progress and asked for more time.

The Secretariat announced that they have received the following nominations for the Protocol Bodies: China (Asia/Pacific) for the MOP 37 Bureau; Ecuador (Latin America and the Caribbean) and Norway (Western Europe and Others) for the Implementation Committee; and Brazil, Mexico, and Cuba (Article 5 Parties) as well as Australia, Belgium, France, Japan, and the US (non-Article 5 Parties) for the ExCom. They urged other Parties to submit their nominations as soon as possible.

In the Breezeways

In and between contact groups on HFC-23 emissions and feedstock uses of controlled substances, participants were trying to work towards a breakthrough to reconcile the gap between reported and monitored emissions of HFC-23, which is a very powerful greenhouse gas with a 100-year global warming potential of 14,800 CO2-equivalent.

“This issue has been on the agenda for a while now,” one delegate exclaimed, “and we need to start seeing some action.” This “goes to the heart of the Protocol,” a second added. Another drew parallels to the previous case of unreported emissions of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-11 between 2013 and 2019, which had been resolved more quickly than the current gap.

Asked about whether targeted funding could help to break through the impasse, one seasoned participant disagreed: “It’s not a lack of funding here as HFC-23 incinerators are not expensive to build, operate, and service. Instead, real time monitoring could help. If live data gets transmitted to national regulators, there is a much better chance to find the hidden sources of the stubbornly high HFC-23 emissions.”