Noting with appreciation the work of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee,

Noting the large numbers of sectors which have moved effectively to alternatives and that technically and economically feasible alternatives have been identified for virtually all non-quarantine and pre-shipment applications of methyl bromide,

Recognizing the significant reductions in critical-use nominations for methyl bromide by many parties,

Recalling paragraph 10 of decision XVII/9 on critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2006 and 2007,

Recalling also that parties nominating critical-use exemptions are requested to report data on stocks of methyl bromide using the accounting framework agreed to by the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties,

Recognizing that parties operating under critical-use exemptions should take into account the extent to which methyl bromide is available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide in licensing, permitting or authorizing the production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses,

Recalling decision Ex.I/4, on conditions for granting and reporting critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide, by which parties with critical-use exemptions were requested to submit annual accounting frameworks and national management strategies,

Recalling also paragraphs 34 to 36, on the market penetration of alternatives, of annex I to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,¹ according to which the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee is to evaluate critical-use nominations on a case-by-case basis and based on information provided by the nominating parties on expected rates of adoption of registered alternatives,

Recalling further decision IX/6, by which the parties decided that production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses was to be permitted only if methyl bromide was not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide,

Noting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel indicated in volume 1 of its September 2020 report² that technically and economically feasible alternatives had been identified for virtually all critical-use exemption applications of methyl bromide and that specific regulations (national or local) on the use of such alternatives often affect the feasibility for end users of using them,

Noting also that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel has identified successful chemical and non-chemical alternatives to methyl bromide and that the use of such alternatives in combination provide excellent results,

Noting further the confirmation that in South Africa methyl bromide fumigation is still the only effective method for fighting wood-boring insects in houses,

Noting that detailed national management plans, as required under paragraph 3 of decision Ex.I/4, have not been received from Argentina and South Africa, while recognizing their progress in reducing amounts nominated for critical uses and efforts to phase in technically and economically feasible alternatives,

Noting also the progress made under the research programme of the Australian strawberry runner industry and that Australia is planning to move to alternatives provided that trials conducted in 2019, 2020 and 2021 are successful and the registration of the alternatives is completed,

Noting further the commitment by the Government of Australia to approve only the amount of methyl bromide still required should an alternative be available and registered for use in 2022,

Noting that Canada takes into account, to the extent feasible, available stocks of methyl bromide in licensing, permitting or authorizing the production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses,

Noting also the progress made under the Canadian research programme and that Canada is committed to continuing its research programme in 2021,

Noting further that the research programme of Argentina is continuing to pursue its aim of developing alternatives to methyl bromide,

Noting that the Government of South Africa is committed to continuing its research programme in 2021 since the registered alternative for structures and mills that was being phased in was reported by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in volume 1 of its report of September 2020 to have a high global warming potential, which puts its phasing in at risk,

Recognizing that some parties have recently stopped requesting critical-use exemptions and that the efforts to develop alternatives and substitutes by parties that continue to apply for exemptions are designed to achieve the same outcome,

1. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2021 and 2022 set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in decision Ex.I/4, to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2021 and 2022 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy critical uses, with the understanding that additional production and consumption and categories of use may be approved by the Meeting of the Parties in accordance with decision IX/6;
2. That parties shall endeavour to licence, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of methyl bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to the present decision;
3. That each party that has an agreed critical-use exemption shall renew its commitment to ensuring that the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision IX/6, in particular the criterion laid down in paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of decision IX/6, are applied in licensing, permitting or authorizing critical uses of methyl bromide, with each party requested to report on the implementation of the present provision to the Secretariat by 1 February for the years to which the present decision applies;
4. That parties submitting future requests for critical-use nominations for methyl bromide shall also comply with paragraph 1 (b) (iii) of decision IX/6 and that parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol shall demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives to and substitutes for methyl bromide;
5. To remind parties when submitting future requests for critical-use nominations for methyl bromide that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee will evaluate nominations on the basis of information provided by nominating parties on the expected rate of adoption of registered alternatives in line with paragraphs 34 to 36 of annex I to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, as well as information on any significant changes to underlying economics in accordance with annex I of decision Ex.1/4;
6. To require parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol requesting critical‑use exemptions to submit their national management strategies in accordance with paragraph 3 of decision Ex.I/4.

Annex to decision XXXII/3
Table A
Agreed critical-use categories

^a Minus available stocks.
^b Tonnes = metric tons.

Table B
Permitted levels of production and consumption

^a Minus available stocks.
^a Tonnes = metric tons.

¹ UNEP/OzL.Pro.16/17.

² https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/TEAP-CUN-final-report-September-2020.pdf.