Montreal monitoring plans required testing and financing

The Montreal Protocol’s November 12, 2025 meeting report described ten potential monitoring regions and locations, with five prioritized. Candidate locations were a planning step, not ten operating stations. ^[1]

Decision XXXVII/1 requested further site evaluation and preparations with interested countries’ voluntary participation. It provided an exceptional $100,000 budget line for specified 2026 activities from the Protocol trust fund’s cash balance. It did not finance an entire permanent network. ^[2]

This followed Decision XXXVI/1 work on suitability, costs and long-term financing. Priority regions included South and Southeast Asia, southern Africa, the Middle East and South America; existing infrastructure and expertise influenced selection. ^[1]

Monitoring methods create different staffing requirements. In-situ instruments and expertise remain on site; flask samples go to established laboratories elsewhere. The report emphasized testing suitability and data quality: a leaking flask skewed some Bhola Island pilot results. ^[1]

The decision also required progress reports to the next Open-ended Working Group and Meeting of the Parties. It asked the Multilateral Fund’s Executive Committee to consider costs and the phased approach when developing guidelines and a possible pilot-project funding window. That was another funding decision, not an award to each candidate. ^[2]

The Secretariat’s November 13 summary connected this work to gaps between reported and measured HFC-23 emissions. Better observations could help examine that discrepancy; it did not identify a new source or prove misconduct. The reviewed record establishes the 2025 decision, not which sites subsequently operated or how continuing operations were financed. ^[3]

About this item: Retrospective report. No first-hand reporting or independent testing is claimed. Corrections policy.