Skip to main content


The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer logo was developed to provide a distinct brand for the two treaties across various communication assets and applications. The visual identity guideline is designed to provide a comprehensive overview of applications and correct use of the logo.


2015 meeting, parties decided “Dubai pathway on HFCs” to “work within the Montreal Protocol to an HFC amendment in 2016 by resolving challenges by generating solutions in the contact group on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs”. This briefing note is to provide background info about agreed baselines under Montreal Protocol, time lag between decision and the years of baseline and initial controls, and baselines put forward in the HFC amendment proposals. The information in this note is intended only as background material for the parties; it is not intended to be exhaustive and does not provide policy recommendations.

Summary of the HFC amendment proposals submitted by Canada, Mexico and the United States (North American proposal), India (Indian proposal), the European Union and its member States (European Union proposal) and some island States (Island States proposal)

cover image

The depletion of the ozone layer and the consequent increase in UV radiation at the surface of Earth has been an issue for over forty years. Over that period, there has been enormous progress in our understanding of the science behind ozone layer depletion and its recovery, the effects of ozone layer changes on surface UV radiation, and the consequences of changes in UV radiation on humans and the environment. 

cover image

In response to Decision XXVI/9, this September 2015 report provides an update from TEAP of information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances listed in June 2015 XXVI/9 report. The report provides updates considering the specific parameters outlined in the current Decision for various sectors and sub-sectors of use. As these parameters were similar to past Decisions (XXIV/7 and XXV/5), TEAP followed the same methodological approach, where no quantitative threshold or importance of one parameter over others was necessarily assumed.