# MONTREAL PROTOCOL

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE

THE OZONE LAYER



# UNEP

R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# S EPTEMBER 

# 2006

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2006 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND



# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# iii Montreal Protocol

On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer



# Report of the

UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

September 2006

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2006 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS

The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman.

Co-ordination: Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

Composition of the report: Ian Porter, Marta Pizano, Michelle Marcotte, Mohammed Besri

Layout of the report: Meg Seki, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi

Date: September 2006



# Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from:

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya

Normally from SMI Distribution Service Ltd., St evenage, Hertfordshire, UK, fax: + 44 1438

748844

This document is also available in portable document format from

http://www.unep.org/ozone/t eap/Reports/TEAP_Reports/

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with

acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: **********

# iv September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# Disclaimer

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel (TEAP) Co-Chairs and members, and th e Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

(MBTOC) Co-Chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not

endorse the performance, worker safety, or enviro nmental acceptability of any of the technical options

discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of

contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity

evaluation - more information on health, environm ental and safety effects of alternatives and

replacements will become available for use in selec ting among the options discussed in this document.

UNEP, TEAP Co-Chairs and members, and the MBTOC Co-Chairs and members, in furnishing or

distributing this information, do not make any warran ty or representation, either express or implied,

with respect to the accuracy, comp leteness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind

whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained

herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate,

efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information.

Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes only and

does not constitute a recommendation of any such compan y, association, or product, either express or

implied by UNEP, TEAP Co-Chairs and members, and the MBTOC Co-Chairs and members or the

companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgements

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options

Committee acknowledge with thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals and

organisations who provided support to Panel and Committee Co-Chairs and members. Particular

appreciation goes to Meg Seki, UNEP Senior Scientific Affairs Officer, for her technical and scientific

support and her contribution to the report. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel and the

Committee and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.



# Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee:

Co-Chairs : Mohammed Besri (Morocco); Michelle Marcotte (Canada); Marta Pizano (Colombia); Ian

Porter (Australia)

Members : Marten Barel (Netherlands); Jonathan Banks (Australia); Antonio Bello (Spain); Chris Bell

(UK); Aocheng Cao (China); Peter Caulkins (USA); Fabio Chaverri (Costa Rica); Ricardo Deang

(Philippines); Patrick Ducom (France); Abraham Gam liel (Israel); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Saad Hafez

(USA); George Lazarovits (Canada); Nahum Marban Mendoza (Mexico); Carlos Medeiros (Brazil);

Melanie Miller (Belgium); Andrea Minuto (Italy); Ta kashi Misumi (Japan); Kazufumi Nishi (Japan);

David Okioga (Kenya); Christoph Reichmuth (Germany); Jordi Riudavets (Spain); Ariane Saade

(Lebanon); John Sansone (USA); James Schaub (USA); Sally Schneider (USA); JL (Stappies)

Staphorst (South Africa); Akio Tateya (Japan); R obert Taylor (UK); Alejandro Valeiro (Argentina);

Ken Vick (USA); Nick Vink (South Africa ); Jim Wells (USA); Chris Watson (UK)

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# v 

# UNEP

S EPTEMBER 

# 2006 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC



# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2006 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

# vi September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# UNEP

S EPTEMBER 

# 2006 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC



# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2006 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR



# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT



# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS



# 1. Scope of this report .........................................................................................1

2. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide ..............................................3

2.1 Mandate...........................................................................................................3

2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions ..............3

2.3 Disclosure of Interest ......................................................................................4

2.4 MBTOC Process .............................................................................................5

2.5 Critical Use Nominations Review ..................................................................5

2.5.1 Consideration of alternatives ....................................................................5

2.5.2 Period of nominations...............................................................................6

2.5.3 Plans to develop, register and deploy alternatives....................................6

2.5.4 Standard presumptions used in as sessment of nominated quantities........7

2.5.5 Use/Emission reduction technologi es - Low permeability barrier

films and dosage reduction .......................................................................9

2.5.6 Adjustments for standard dosage rates using MB/Pic formulations.......11

2.5.7 Use of canisters of MB ...........................................................................11

2.5.8 Rate of adoption of alternatives ..............................................................15

2.5.9 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6....................................................................16

2.5.10 Sustainable Alternatives..........................................................................17

2.5.11 Frequency of allowed MB use ................................................................17

2.5.12 Consideration of Stocks ..........................................................................18

2.5.13 Use of MB for Research .........................................................................18

2.6 Decisions Ex.I/4(9d) and Decision XVII/9(10)............................................18

2.7 Final Evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2006 for 2007 or 2008. ................27

2.7.1 Details of evaluations..............................................................................27

2.7.2 Minority statement..................................................................................27

2.8 References.....................................................................................................87

3. MBTOC Work plan 2006, Budget 2007.......................................................95

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................95

3.2 Allocation of the Funds under Decision XVI/5 ............................................95

3.3 MBTOC Work plan for 2007 - Details.........................................................95

3.4 Summary Report of the Activitie s Carried out by MBTOC in 2006............97

3.5 Allocation of the Funds provided under the 2006 budget approved at the

Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties...............................................................98

3.6 Management and Personnel Issues ...............................................................98

4. Recapture of methyl bromide – information provided under Decision

XVII/11....................................................................................................101

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................101

4.2 Background and definitions ........................................................................101

4.3 Submissions under XVII/11........................................................................103

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# vii 

# 4.3.1 Summary of submissions ......................................................................103

4.3.2 Comment on recapture and destruction performance ...........................103

4.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................104

4.5 References...................................................................................................104

Appendix I to Chapter 4: Submission of Australia under Decision XVII/11.........105

Appendix II to Chapter 4: Submission of the United States of America under

Decision XVII/11.....................................................................................109

ANNEX I ................................................................................................................119

ANNEX II...............................................................................................................120

ANNEX III..............................................................................................................121

ANNEX IV .............................................................................................................127

# viii September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2006 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL



# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT



# – S EPTEMBER 

# 2006

Glossary of Acronyms

1,3-D 1,3-dichloropropene

A5 Article 5(1) Party

CUE Critical Use Exemption

CUN Critical Use Nomination

EC European Commission

EMOP Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPPO European Plant Protection Organisation

IPM Integrated Pest Management

LPBF Low Permeability Barrier Film

MB Methyl bromide

MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

MITC Methyl isothiocyanate

MOP Meeting of the Parties

MS Metham sodium

Pic Chloropicrin

QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment

SF Sulfuryl fluoride

TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel

US United States of America

VIF Virtually Impermeable Film

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 1 

# 1. Scope of this report

This 2006 final report provides final evalua tions of MBTOC/TEAP on CUNs submitted by

Parties in 2006, in accordance with the timeta ble set out in the Annex I referred to by

Decision XVI/4. The report also provides an updated summary of National Management

Plans provided by seven parties showing the status of future MB critical use. MBTOC has

provided MB consumption figures in the pr ogress report in May 2006 and also provided

tables and figures of trend lines in critical use exem ptions in this report. This information is

submitted in order to meet the requirements to review management strategies submitted by

Parties pursuant to Decision Ex.I/4 (9d) and to report on the amount of methyl bromide

nominated for critical use by the Parties as per Decision XVII/9 (10).

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 3 

# 2. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

2.1 Mandate

Under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol the production and consumption (defined as

production plus imports minus expor ts) of methyl bromide is to be phased out in Parties not

operating under Article 5(1) of the Protocol, by 1 January 2005. However, the Parties agreed

to a provision enabling exemptions for those uses of methyl bromide that qualify as critical.

Parties established criteria, under Decision IX/6 of the Protocol, which all such uses need to

meet in order to be granted an exemption. Refer to Annex 2 for a copy of Decision IX/6.

All reviews of CUNs made in 2006 are to be in accordance with the ‘Annex I’ referred to in

Decision XVI/4. This annex also sets out the pro cedure and timetable for the annual review of

critical use nominations. In addition to the criteria for the evaluation provided in Decision IX/6, the

Parties have given further guidance for the review of CUNs in Annex 1 of 16 MOP meeting report.

Inter alia, this requires that TEAP and MBTOC provi de a clear description of why any part of a

nomination is not recommended, including references to the relevant studies used as the basis for

such a decision. Para. 32 emphasises that exempti ons must fully comply with Decision IX/6 and

other relevant decisions, and are intended to be limited to the levels needed for critical use

exemptions. These are considered as temporary de rogations from the phaseout of methyl bromide

in that they are to apply only until there are technically and economically feasible alternatives that

otherwise meet the criteria in Decision IX/6. The assessment by MBTOC should take a precise and

transparent approach to the application of the crite ria, having regard, especia lly, to paragraphs 4 and

20 of Annex I.

Paragraphs 4 and 20 read:

4. Although the burden of proof remains with the Party to justify a request for a criticaluse exemption, MBTOC will provide in its repor t a clear explanation of its operation with

respect to the process of making determinations for its recommendations, and clearly state the

approach, assumptions and reasoning used in th e evaluation of the critical-use nominations.

When cuts or denials are propo sed, the description should include citations and also indicate

where alternatives are technically and economically feasible in circumstances similar to those

in the nomination, as described in decision Ex.1/5, paragraph 8.

20. In line with paragraph 4 above, in any case in which a Party makes a

nomination which relies on the economic criteria of decision IX/6, MBTOC should, in

its report, explicitly state the central bas is for the Party’s economic argument and

explicitly explain how it addressed that factor, and, in cases in which MBTOC

recommends a cut; MBTOC should also provide an explanation of its economic

feasibility.



# 2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions

MBTOC has held two meetings in 2006 to assess the CUNs. Meetings were held 3-9 April

2006 in Dubrovnik, Croatia and 28 August - 2 September 2006 in Yokohama, Japan. These

meetings were held as required by the time sc hedule for considerations of CUNs given in

Annex I referred to in Decision XVI/4.

Fourteen Parties submitted 60 critical use nomin ations for 2007 and 30 nominations for 2008.

These totalled 2557.106 and 7 098.094 metric tonnes respec tively. These Parties had

submitted nominations in previous CUN r ounds. The total number of nominations and

nominating Parties has been reduced from the 2005 round. Four Parties that had CUEs in

# 4 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# previous years did not submit further nominations in the final round for 2007. During the

final assessment in Yokohama, thirty six CUNs, which MBTOC was unable to assess in the

first round, were reassessed. Nine CUNs were also reassessed at the re quest of the respective

Party and one was withdrawn (Ireland Mills).

One Party, the United States, made arrangeme nts to meet with MBTOC during the Yokohama

meeting for discussions with regard to their CUNs, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex

1 referred to in Decision XVI/4. In addition, field trips in Japan were held with Japanese

government scientists and i ndustry representatives to assist MBTOC to improve its

understanding of Japanese agricultural systems. MBTOC members present at the Open Ended

Working Group also attended a field trip to improve understanding of issues concerning pest

control in pasta manufacturing.

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in D ecision XVI/4, Parties, inter alia, specifically

requested that, in cases where a nomination relies on the economic criteria of Decision IX/6,

MBTOC’s report should explicitly state the centr al basis for the Party’s economic argument

relating to CUNs. Table 9 provides this in formation for each CUN that relied on economic

criteria.

MBTOC has sometimes suggested quantities of MB for 2007 or 2008 different from the

amounts nominated. Grounds used for these cha nges are given in detail after the relevant

CUNs in Table 9. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 1 and 2,

unless indicated otherwise.

In general, CUNs resulted mainly from the follo wing issues: regulatory restrictions on one or

two specific alternatives, time required to tran sition to alternatives, including application

issues, and economic issues. For the most part technical alternatives exist, but there is often

less experience with alternatives than with me thyl bromide. Lack of experience with

alternatives has resulted in some applicati on errors, and sometimes reluctance to adopt

otherwise technically effective alternatives. Additionally, inadequate economic studies, in

terms of number of studies, conduct of the studi es and utility of results to pertinent industries

has hampered decisions to adopt alternatives.

As in the previous round, MBTOC has been unabl e to identify alternatives, or has inadequate

information for the following applications: fresh high-moisture dates, some seeds infested

with nematodes, infested cheese in cheese stor es, infested dry cure ham, and unmovable

historical artefacts especially where fungi ar e of concern. The Parties are requested to

consider focusing some research on these applica tions to adapt and, where required, register

effective alternatives.



# 2.3 Disclosure of Interest

Further to the normal Disclosure of Interest required under the TEAP/TOC terms of reference,

MBTOC members made an additional discl osure to the MBTOC Co-Chairs relating

specifically to their level of national, regional or enterprise involvement for the 2006 CUN

process. This was required to ensure that those with a high level of involvement and interest

in developing a particular nomination did not bias the process of evaluation through

participation in the detailed review. The Disclos ure of Interest form is an internal MBTOC

document. The DOI used in previous rounds was used for the 2006 round. As in previous

rounds, some members withdrew from a partic ular CUN assessment or only provided

technical advice on request for those nominations where a potential conflict of interest was

declared.

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 5 

# 2.4 MBTOC Process

A soil subcommittee in MBTOC considered the nomin ations relating to the use of MB for soil

fumigation, while a post-harvest subcommittee c onsidered the nominations relating to the use

of MB for fumigation of commodities, structures and objects. Drafts arising from the

subcommittees were considered in plenary. MBTOC, by consensus, was unable to assess one

nomination (Australia rice 2008).

This report and decisions of the committee were by consensus, recognizing that different

perspectives exist within the committee on certain aspects. In its final meeting, MBTOC

reviewed 90 nominations and achieved full con sensus on all but four of these nominations.

The four nominations where consensus was not achieved were from the US and the lack of

consensus was due to different views on the rate of adoption of alternatives. Four out of thirty

one MBTOC members present decided to prepare a minority report on these CUNs. That

report can be found in Section 2.7.2.

All nominations received consistent treatment, however specific circumstances of each

nomination were taken into account. Assessme nts were independent of the size of the

exemption requested.

In general, the most recent CUE approved by th e Parties for a particular application was used

as a benchmark for consideration of continuing nominations. In some instances, this

benchmark differed from that used by the nomina ting Party. In 2008, changes to the format

of US CUNs for soil uses, meant that MBTO C was required to use the 2008 figures as the

basis for calculating recommendations.



# 2.5 Critical Use Nominations Review

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2006, MBTOC applied the standards contained in

Annex I of 16MOP, and, where relevant the st andard presumptions given below. The process

was similar to that in 2005. In particular MB TOC sought to provide consistent treatment of

CUNs within and between Parties while at the same time taking local circumstances into

consideration for specific crops and situations , and to provide transparency in its processes

and conclusions.

2.5.1 Consideration of alternatives

As in previous years, MBTOC used the guidan ce given in Annex I where ‘alternatives’ were

defined as any practice or treatment that can be used in place of methyl bromide. ‘Existing

alternatives’ are those alternatives in present or past use in some regions; and ‘potential

alternatives’ are those alternatives in the process of investigation or development.

MBTOC also used information on the suita bility of alternatives for a nomination by

considering the commercial adoption of alterna tives in regions nominated for CUNs. Also,

adoption in regions with similar climatic z one and cropping practices was used as an

indication of the feasibility (technical and economic) of an alternative in a similar region. For

example, 1,3-dichloropropene/chloropicrin (1,3-D/Pic), metham sodium alone or in

combination with Pic, dazomet, substrates and th e use of resistant varieties and grafted plants

(for solanaceous crops, melons and other cucurb its) have been adopted to replace MB for a

range of crops in industries applying for C UNs and in many regions where MB was once

used.

Rate of change in commercial adoption, par tly as a result of rapidly changing regulation,

challenges MBTOC’s ability to ma ke diligent recommendations in the use of alternatives for

# 6 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# post-harvest applications, especially when r ecommendations are considered for one or two

years in the future. In post-har vest applications, where research is minimal, but commercial

adoption trials are more common, MBTOC needs Pa rties and the affected industries to release

the results of commercial trials, using group repor ting methods when data is judged to be

proprietary.

MBTOC has to be knowledgeable about regulator y advances, but in post-harvest applications

domestic, import and export re gulations all play a role that complicates adoption of

alternatives. Several post-harvest CUNs indi cate that if importing Parties were to set

maximum residue levels for fluoride in foods, th en the use of alternatives, for both food and

structural applications by exporting countries, would improve. This year, as MBTOC was

making its final recommendations, both CODE X and Germany published maximum residue

levels for fluoride in several foods. Given th e newness of these announcements, the impact of

these publications on actual MB use for 2007 and 2008 was difficult to predict.

In evaluating the CUNs for soil treatments, MBTOC assumed that a technically feasible

alternative to MB would need to provide su fficient pest and weed control for continued

production of that crop to existing market standards. For commodity and structural

applications, it was assumed that a technically feasible alternative would provide

disinfestation to a level that met the objectives of a MB treatment, e.g. meeting infestation

standards in finished product from a mill. T echnically feasible alternatives do not necessarily

provide superior pest control results than ar e achieved in practice by MB. Yet, a detailed

understanding and agreement on the comparativ e effectiveness of key alternatives, in

particular for structural pest control, is inco mplete. Scientific and industry consensus has not

been achieved since alternatives may work diffe rently and agreement of necessary end points

seems to be a difference of opinion.

MBTOC evaluation of CUNs relating to produc tion of strawberries, tomatoes and some

related crops was assisted by information provided by a large number of published studies on

MB alternatives. Many of these studies had been subjected to a statistical analysis (refer

Special Report TEAP May 2006, Porter et al, 2006). The published studies assisted in

providing additional transparency to MBTOC ev aluations, as requested by the Parties in

Decision XI/4.

2.5.2 Period of nominations

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2007 and 2008. No nominations in this

particular round were submitted for years af ter 2008. One Party, Australia, submitted

nominations for both 2007 and 2008, for cut flowers and rice.

2.5.3 Plans to develop, register and deploy alternatives

To qualify for a CUE, Decision IX/6 in part st ates that Parties must demonstrate that “...an

appropriate effort is being ma de to evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory

approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the

particular nomination...” and “...must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to

develop and deploy alte rnatives and substitutes...”

In many nominations in the 2006 round, as in previous rounds, plans to phase out methyl

bromide and adopt alternatives were often not ade quate to allow complete and fast transition.

As with the 2004 and 2005 rounds, MBTOC did not use lack of effective phase-out plans as a

basis to ‘not recommend’ a nomination.

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 7 Decision Ex. I/4 requires Parties that make “a critical-use nomination after 2005 to submit a

national management strategy for phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide to the Ozone

Secretariat before 1 February 2006”. A summary of these plans is shown in

Tables 6 and 7.

Several Parties did however, identify feasible a lternatives and reduced their nominations to

account for phase-in of these alternatives. In some instances, even though alternatives were

considered effective by the Party and MBTOC, the reported phase in of these alternatives was

considered low by MBTOC (less than 4-7 % adoption of the total nomination). In these

instances, in its majority report, MBTOC used information on adoption rates used by other

Parties to assess likely adoption whilst giving due consideration to the specific circumstances

of the nomination. MBTOC did not reduce a Party’s requested amount for phase-in of

alternatives without technical and economic evaluation and suitable justification.

2.5.4 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities.

The tables below (Tables 1, 2) provide statem ents of standard presumptions applied by

MBTOC/TEAP in assessing this round of CUNs where continued methyl bromide use is

sought. These standard presumptions were propo sed in the MBTOC report of October 2005

and were presented to the Parties at the 17 th 

# MOP.

Presently, as reported by MBTOC in previous reports (UNEP/TEAP 2005a, b, c, 2006) the

rates and practices adopted by MBTOC as standard presumptions for soils uses are, in

general, conservative. For soil treatments, the dosage levels of methyl bromide given in these

presumptions generally exceed that required to provide effective cont rol of pathogens and

weeds when also using emission control technologies in all but exceptional circumstances,

particularly when used in conjunction with low gas permeability barrier films (LPBF), such as

various VIF and metallised barrier films (eg. Canslit). In some specific circumstances, the

dosage levels of methyl bromide given in these presumptions may not be sufficient to provide

effective control of pathogens and weeds. A co py of the actual dosage rate of MB in MB/Pic

formulations and those used as standard presump tions is shown in Table 1 and 3. MBTOC

could not reach consensus on new maximum dosag e rates for soil uses and thus will maintain

the current presumptions.

As in the evaluations in previous years, MBTOC reduced quantities of MB in particular

nominations to a standard rate per treated area or volume of commodity.

MBTOC’s standard dosage rate for structural fumigation has become the industry standard.

Therefore, MBTOC only occasionally needs to reduce quantities of MB recommended to

bring planned commodity fumigation into lin e with MBTOC’s standard presumptions for

commodity treatment, which are cons istent with EPPO standards.

MBTOC considers the maximum MB application rate for 98% MB to be 

# either 350 kg/ha

(warm sandy soils) or 450 kg/ha (heavier cool soils), in conjunction with low barrier

permeability films (e.g., VIF or equivalent), combined with extended exposure periods, as

effective in most circumstances when well app lied. In cases where use of high chloropicrincontaining mixtures (approximately MB:Pic 67:33 or 50:50) were feasible, maximum dosage

rates of 175 kg MB/ha where nutgrass is the key pest and 150 kg/ha for pathogens are

regarded as reasonable and were used as the maximum standard presumptions unless there

was a regulatory or technical reason indicated otherwise by the Party.

As a special case, MBTOC accepted a maximum rate of 200 kg/ha of MB (i.e. 20g /m2) for

mixtures of MB/Pic for certified strawberry runner production in the absence of data that

showed certification standards could be met in the circumstances of particular nominations.

However, several Parties indicated that rates of 20g/m2 of MB or less (Table 4) of MB:Pic

# 8 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 50:50 were effective with barrier films for pr oduction of ‘certified’ strawberry runners and

may be suitable for other propagative material.

Several Parties also indicated that 25g/m2 of 98:2 were effectively used in standard

commercial application, and several Parties had regulations, which required higher rates of up

to 50g/m2. In these situations, MBTOC has s uggested to Parties that lower rates may be

technically effective.

The indicative rates used by MBTOC were maximum guideline rates, for the purpose of

calculation only. MBTOC recognises that the actual rate appropriate for a specific use may

vary with local circumstances, soil conditions and the target pest situation. Some nominations

were based on rates lower than these indicative rates.

Table 1. Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs for the 2006 round – soil treatments



# .

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions

1. Dosage rates Maximum guideline rates for

MB:Pic 98:2 – 45 g/m 2 

# (cold,

heavy soils) or 35 g/m 2 

# (sandy

soils), both with barrier films

(VIF or equivalent); for

MB/Pic 67:33 - 15g or 17.5g

MB/m 2 

# for pathogens and

nutsedge respectively, under

barrier films. All rates on a

‘per treated hectare’ basis. Amount adjusted to maximum

guideline rates. Maximum rates

set dependent on formulation and

soil type and film availability. Higher rates accepted if

specified under national

legislation or where the Party

had justified otherwise.

2. Barrier films All treatments to be carried out

under low permeability barrier

film (e.g. VIF) Nomination reduced

proportionately to conform to

barrier film use. Where barrier film prohibited

or restricted by legislative or

regulatory reasons

3. MB/Pic Formulation:

Pathogen control Unless otherwise specified,

MB/Pic 50:50 (or similar) was

considered to be the standard

effective formulation for

pathogen control, as a

transitional strategy to replace

MB/Pic 98:2. Nominated amount adjusted for

use with MB/Pic 50:50 (or

similar). Where MB/Pic 50:50 is not

registered, or chloropicrin

(Pic) is not registered

4. MB/Pic Formulation:

Weeds/nutgrass control Unless otherwise specified,

MB/Pic 67:33 (or similar) was

used as the standard effective

formulation for control of

resistant (tolerant) weeds, as a

transitional strategy to replace

MB/Pic 98:2. Nominated amount adjusted for

use with MB/Pic 67:33 (or

similar). Where chloropicrin or

chloropicrin-containing

mixtures are not registered

5. Strip vs. Broadacre Fumigation with MB and

mixtures to be carried out

under strip Where rates were shown in

broadacre hectares, the CUN was

adjusted to the MB rate relative

to strip treatment (i.e. treated

area). If not specified, the area

under strip treatment was

considered to represent 67% of

the total area. Where strip treatment

was not feasible e.g.

some protected

cultivation or open field

production of high

health propagative

material

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 9 Table 2 Standard presumptions used in asse ssment of CUNs – post-harvest treatments

Comment CUN Adjustment Exception

Dosage rate -

structural 20 g/m 3 

# Nominations using higher

dosage rates were reduced

proportionally Where approved label rates

require higher dosage rate or

where substantiated by the

Party

Dosage rate –

commodities EPPO standard for bulk

commodities as given in

MBTOC (1994, 1998) Nominations using higher

dosage rates were reduced

proportionally Where approved label rates

require higher dosage rates

or where substantiated by the

Party



# Table 3. Actual dosage rates applied during preplant fumigation when different rates and

formulations of methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixtur es are applied with and without barrier films.

Rates of application reflect standard commercial applications rates.

* Note: Trials from 1996 to 2006 (Table 4) show that a dosage of 10g/m 2 

# (eg. MB/Pic 50:50 at

200kg/ha with LP Barrier Films) is technically f easible for many situations and equivalent to the

standard dosage of >20g/m 2 

# using standard films



# 2.5.5 Use/Emission reduction technologies - Low permeability barrier films and

dosage reduction

Decision IX/6 states in part that critical uses should be permitted only if ‘all technically and

economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated

emission of methyl bromide’. Decision Ex. II/1 also mentions emission minimization

techniques, requesting Parties “...to ensure, wh erever methyl bromide is authorized for

critical-use exemptions, the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually

impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques

that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible.”

Where possible in this round, MBTOC assessed C UNs for reductions in MB application rates

and deployment of MB emission reduction technologies, such as use of low permeability

barrier films, including VIFs or semipermeab le films, or other appropriate sealing and MB/Pic formulation (dose of MB in g/m 2 

# ) Commercial

application rates

of formulation

98:2 67:33 50:50 30:70

A. With Standard Polyethylene Films

400 39.2 26.8 20.0 12.0

350 34.3 23.5 17.5 10.5

300 29.4 20.1 15.0 9.0

B. With Low Permeability Barrier Films (LPBF)

250 24.5 16.75 12.5 7.5

200 19.6 13.4 10.0* 6.0

175 17.2 11.8 8.8 5.3

# 10 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# emission control techniques including deep injection of MB, use of formulations with a lower

proportion of MB and/ or reduced frequency of application.

A large number of studies under field conditions in a number of regions (Table 4), together

with the large scale adoption of low permeability barrier films in Europe (eg. VIF), support

the use of these films as a means to reduce MB dosage rates. Controlled studies have also

shown substantial reductions in MB emissi ons (Wang 1997, Yates 2004, Yates 1996 a,b).

Research and development on low permeability barrier films has been summarised in the

1998 and 2002 MBTOC Assessment Reports (M BTOC 1998, 2002). Typically equivalent

effectiveness is achieved with 25 –50% less methyl bromide dosage applied under LPBF

compared with normal polyethylene containment films (See Table 3). Recent advancements

in the cost and technical performance of barri er films, especially metallised polyethylene

films have reduced cost and extended their suita bility for use with methyl bromide and also

some of the alternatives. Previous difficulti es with sealing and gluing barrier films are no

longer seen as a technical barrier to implemen tation of barrier films under most climatic

conditions as new application technologies (ie. glues, polyethylene edges and perforated

films) have solved earlier problems. MBTOC acknowledges that there is a need for growers

to obtain confidence in new sealing methods and new films and that modifications to sealing

techniques may be required in new areas where uptake of barrier films is expanding (eg., in

the US).

The use of low permeability barrier films (VIF or equivalent) is compulsory in the 25 member

countries of the European Union (EC Regulation 2037/2000). In other regions LPBF films are

considered technically feasible except for the State of California in the US, however, which

has a regulation which currently prevents im plementation of VIF (California Code of

Regulations Title 3 Section 6450(e)). This regulation resulted from concerns of possible

worker exposure to MB when the film is re moved or when seedlings are planted due to

altered flux rates of MB.

In 2003, 2004 and 2005 (UNEP/TEAP 2003, 2004, 2005c, 2006), MBTOC/TEAP evaluations

of CUNs used maximum allowable dosage rates for use with standard films and barrier films.

Since then, high levels of success have been dem onstrated in many countries at lower rates of

methyl bromide with barrier films (Table 4) . These presumptions were first reported in the

October TEAP 2005 report and again in the TEAP Progress Report May 2006 CUN report.

Studies show these standard presumptions fo r MB dosages (150-175 kg/ha) in MB/Pic

formulations with barrier films as conservative. Dosage rates as low as 100 kg/ha of 30:70 or

50:50 MB/Pic have shown similar effectiveness to rates of 335 to 800 kg/ha using standard

polyethylene (Table 4, Fig 1.). Since the firs t reports, further trials and commercial adoption

of barrier films with MB/Pic 50:50 has occu rred at rates of 200 kg/ha (<10g/m2 MB) using

MB/Pic 50:50 or MB 33:67 (or 30:70) for open field crops.

To assist the adoption of lower dosage rates, res earchers, extension specialists and fumigators

need to continue to build grower confidence in the use of barrier films, and sealing methods to

ensure maximum effectiveness of lower dose a pplications of MB. Practical permeabilities for

barrier films are identified by suppliers and o ffer MB users a wider range of opportunities for

lowering MB dosages.

In structures, it is feasible to reduce MB use and emissions through improved sealing

techniques, with monitoring to ensure only the minimum effective dosage is used, and longer

exposure periods. In post-harvest applications, improving gas tightness of the treatment

facility has the effect of reducing methyl bromide use during that fumigation and possibly

improving effectiveness, which can reduce fumigation frequency as well. Improving gas

tightness in traditional structures has been reporte d to be difficult, costly and/or impossible.

Reliable economic cost data is virtually unava ilable, so this remains a difficult area for

MBTOC and the Parties to rectify.

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 11 Several types of commodity fumigations take place in well-sealed structures. Due to local

regulations a few companies have added methyl bromide recapture equipment to these sealed

structures in order to minimize methyl bromide emissions. The amount of methyl bromide

that can be recaptured will vary depending on the type of enclosure, gas tightness and the

commodity being treated.

2.5.6 Adjustments for standard dosage rates using MB/Pic formulations

One key transitional strategy to reduce MB dosage has been the adoption of MB:Pic

formulations with lower concentrations of me thyl bromide (e.g. MB:Pic 50:50 or less). In

open field crops, these formulations are consider ed to be equally as effective in controlling

soilborne pathogens as formulations containi ng higher quantities of methyl bromide (e.g.

98:2, 67:33) (e. g. Porter et al 1997; Melgarejo et al 2000; Lopez-Aranda et al 2003, 2006; De

Cal, 2005; De Cal, 2004a, b; Gilreath et al , 2005 a,b). Formulations containing high

proportions of chloropicrin in mixtures with me thyl bromide have been adopted widely by

non-Article 5 countries to meet Montreal Protocol restrictions where such formulations are

registered or otherwise permitted. Their u se can be achieved with similar application

machinery which allows co-injection of methyl bromide and chloropicrin or by use of

premixed formulations. Consistent perform ance has been demonstrated with both LPBF

(Table 4, Fig 1) and standard polyethylene films.

In commodities, methyl bromide dosage rates vary with commodity temperature and by

commodity sorption rates. Accordingly, MB TOC uses the dosage rates published by the

European Plant Protection Organization ( EPPO) and found in annexes to the MBTOC

Assessment Reports published in 1995, 1998 a nd 2002. Parties are encouraged to use the

lowest possible dosage rate appropriate for th e circumstances and as allowed by the label.

2.5.7 Use of canisters of MB

One Party submitting CUN’s in this round, still uses canisters (i.e. small 500 to 750g

canisters) for application of MB under thick polyethylene films. This practice is not

considered as effective for pathogen control as use of MB/Pic mixtures and also leads to high

emissions of methyl bromide if used without barri er films. If canisters are used it is important

that proper techniques are followed to ensure maximum diffusion of MB under tarps to ensure

consistent treatment of soils. Also it is important that reduced dosages of MB (less than 25g

MB/m2) are used with barrier films and that films be kept in place as long as practical, up to 4

weeks, to reduce the chance of off gassing a nd worker exposure. Canisters have been

eliminated in most countries (most recently in Greece and Chile) as they were considered

dangerous. Canisters are used because they provide small land holders with an easy

application method and the ability to apply ta rgeted amounts of MB to small areas where

injection machinery may be difficult to u se in these circumstances. MBTOC notes that

dazomet is an alternative that has been used successfully in many small scale areas where

machinery use is difficult.

# 12 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

MB dosage rate (kg/ha) under barrier filmRelative Yield



# Figure 1. Relative yield of crops (strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupes) grown under

barrier films with different MB/Pic formulations compared to the standard commercial treatment

using standard polyethylene from trials between 1998 and 2004 ( ▲ MB/Pic 98:2; ● MB/Pic 67:33;

♦ MB/Pic 50:50; ■ MB/Pic 33:67). Data have been taken from Table 4.Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report13Table 4. Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied in combination with low permeability barrier films compared to the commercial standardMB/Pic formulation applied under standard low density polyethylene films.Untreated Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Mixtures (Product rate per treated area)Std film Barrier Film -Relative yield compared to standard polyethyleneYieldMB/PicFormuln.ProductRateNotSpec 98:2 98:2 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 50:50 33:67CountryRegionCommodityBrand or Type ofBarrier Filmkg/ha 300 400 300 98 196 200 294 336 392 200 200NotesReferenceMB Dosage rate (g/m2)392 294 66 131 134 197 225 263 100 66SpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - NotSpec7450:5040093De Cal et al 2004 a,b; De Cal2005Navalmanzano7850:5040080Fusarium,Phytophthora,Pythium,Rhizoctonia andVerticilliumSpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec6850:50400114102Melgarejo et al 2003Navalmanzano3450:504007675Fusarium,Cladosporium,RhizoctoniaSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec50:50400972003 resultsLopez-Aranda et al 2003,2006Malvinas50:50400991998 FusariumSpainValenciaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec59Not Spec60094At 10cm & 30cmBartual et al 200253Not Spec600931999 resultsSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:33400112Lopez-Aranda et al 2001aTariquejo5467:33400106Meloidogyne andweeds (unspec.)SpainMoguer/CartayaStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec50:5039299Inoculum notspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 2001bSpainCabeza, Nav.Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec7467:33400105, 921998 Two sitesMelgarejo et al 2000Arevalo, Nav.8450:50400104, 1041999 results,nurseriesVinaderos, Nav.4950:5040095, 1232000 results,nurseriesSpainHuelvaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec8267:334001011997-1998Inoc.unspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 2000,20067267:334001021998-1999 Inoc.Unspecified6867:334001091999-2000 Inoc.Unspecified14September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportSpainMoncadaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec6098:260095Cebolla et al 19995498:2600911998 No majorpathogens butFusarium buried10cm&30cm.FranceDouvilleStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec65Not Spec80099Inoculum notspecifiedFritsch 1998NZHavelock NorthStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8367:3350098PhytophthorapresentHorner 1999USAFloridaPepperVIF Plastopil6967:3339278NutgrassGilreath et al 2005 a,bVIF Plastopil6967:3339299PresentVIF Vikase6967:3339283VIF Vikase6967:3339286USAFloridaStrawb Fruit,CantaloupeBarrier - Pliant,Metallised98:267:33Trials on 18 Commercial Farms between 2000-2004; no increase in disease or weedswhen rates reduced up to 50% under VIF wrt. polyethyleneNutgrass andpathogenspresentNoling and Gilreath 2004USACalifornia7267:33336108Inoculum notspecifiedAjwa et al 2004Strawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:3339296USAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec3167:3339211193114Nutgrass androotknotnematodesHamill et al 2004USACaliforniaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec7567:33392106Ajwa et al 20038367:333921116567:33392102Watsonville, highpathogenpressureUSAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec67:33392"No significant reduction in yield"Noling et al 2001USACaliforniaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec4567:33364116Duniway et al 1998Unweighted averages (relative % yield)66949993939910210010310810491

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 15 2.5.8 Rate of adoption of alternatives

MBTOC recognizes that time is needed to effect phase-in of alternatives and accepts this as a

reasonable technical argument for l ack of availability to the user sensu Decision IX/6.

Some CUNs in the 2006 round argued that time w as required to allow the relevant industry to

transition to available effective alternatives. Most CUNs showed a reduction in nominated

quantity requested from that of the preceding year, reflecting progressive adoption of

alternatives; while others had the same or similar quantities of MB nominated to the

preceding CUNs. Some CUNs showed comparatively slow rates of adoption. In some cases,

alternatives at varying stages of readiness for adoption, were identified in the CUN and, in

others, they were identified by MBTOC. MBTOC reviewed the technical information on

alternatives and the commercial adoption of alte rnatives by Parties previously using MB in

similar sectors to those where CUNs had been sought (see Figure 4.) in order to make an

assessment. In some cases, MBTOC made ad justments for adoption ratesof alternatives

based on the specific circumstances of the nomin ation. In most instances the adoption rates

varied between 10 and 25%. At the Yokohama meeting where evaluations of these CUNs

were finalized, 4 MBTOC members (13% of those present) disagreed with the majority

position given in Table 9 for US eggplant, peppe rs, tomatoes and the SE region for strawberry

fruit. See section 2.7 for the minority statement on these CUNs.

MBTOC notes that data on the commercial adopti on of alternatives for preplant soil use for

similar sectors as those where consensus could no t be reached shows that substantial adoption

in many regions has occurred within 4 years or less.

MBTOC also notes that some countries achieved re latively fast adoption because regulations

were imposed (eg. EC licensed MB amount s in 2006) and in others because growers

voluntarily accepted alternatives and moved away from MB as they had concerns over the

environment and human health. Also in several countries, CUNs were not sought for some of

those sectors where consensus could not be reach ed. For instance, the tomato and vegetable

crops (eg. peppers, cucurbits and eggplants) were previously large MB user crops in Australia

and Spain and complete phase-out for these sectors was accompanied by uptake of a range of

alternatives before 2005, and industries did not apply for a CUN. Italy has also reduced

consumption by over 95% in 2007 (assisted recently by EC licensing) for tomatoes.

Substantial reduction or complete phase out of MB has also occurred for strawberry fruit

crops in Australia, France, Italy, Spain and th e UK (Table 4). Phase out of MB by the end of

2006 has occurred in many countries. For tomato es: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal,

Spain, UK. For strawberry fruit: Belgium, Greece, Japan, Portugal. For peppers : Australia,

Greece, Israel, Malta, New Zealand, UK. For eggplant : Belgium, Greece, Israel, Japan, New

Zealand, Spain, UK.

In contrast to this, Israel has found transi tion more difficult in these sectors above mainly

because of restrictions on the use of a key a lternative, chloropicrin and MBTOC came to

consensus on the slower adoption rates. Regulatory restrictions in the US have also restricted

uptake of a key alternative, 1,3-D.

Phase-out has also occurred in other sectors pr eviously using MB, eg. Australian open field

cut flowers, UK cut flowers and ornamental trees and for all sectors previously seeking CUNs

in Belgium, Malta and Portugal.

There is limited guidance from the Parties and data available on what is a reasonable rate of

transition to existing and available alternatives, though para. 35 of Annex I referred to in

Decision XVI/4 states that “in situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on

grounds that it is necessary to have a peri od for adoption of alternatives, the basis for

# 16 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# calculating the time period” is required to be “fully in the TEAP report and take fully into

account the information provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the distributor or the

manufacturer. Relevant factors for such a calcu lation include the number of enterprises that

need to transition, e.g., the number of fumi gation and pest control companies, estimated

training time assuming full effort, opportuniti es for importing alternative equipment and

expertise if not available locally, and costs involved.”

As most Parties did not provide all the in formation required unde r Annex 1 of Decision

XIV/4, MBTOC used transition rates from other Parties to assist determination of suitable

adoption rates in order to provide specific recommendations in this report. In discussion on

adoption rates for uptake of alternative technologies in CUNs, MBTOC noted several

examples. In the past, where several indus tries have been heavily reliant on MB, eg.

strawberry fruit, tomatoes and vegetable crops (e g. several countries of the EC (e.g. Spain,

Italy and Australia), almost complete adoptio n of alternative technologies (especially those

requiring similar application technologies) has been achieved in a 3 to 4 year period. In some

cases, these regions have similar climates and pests complexes to those requesting CUNs, but

may have different production, marketing and regulatory systems. Improved guidance from

the Parties, giving expected rates of adoption of alternatives following registration, would

assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future . Rapid rates of adoption for various uses and

alternatives have been considered by the Eu ropean Commission as part of its National

Management Plan submitted in 2006 (see Tabl e 7). Adoption was achieved in periods of

about 4 years, sometimes through the use of regulatory requirements or licensing measures

that assisted final transition to alternatives.

2.5.9 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6

Decision XVI/2 directed MBTOC to indicate whether all CUNs fully met the requirements of

Decision IX/6. When the requirements of Deci sion IX/6 1(a)(ii) were substantially met,

MBTOC recommended the full amount of the request. Where some parts of a CUN did not

meet Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) MBTOC reco mmended a decreased amount, depending on its

technical and economic evaluation. MBTOC reduced a nomination when a technical

alternative was considered effective or, in a fe w cases, when the Party failed to show that it

was not effective. In cases where Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) was not satisfied to a substantial

extent, MBTOC did not recommend the nomination. In this round of CUNs, as in previous

rounds, MBTOC considered answers submitted by Pa rties in response to questions previously

sent and given during bilatera l meetings with Parties.

MBTOC’s interpretation of fulfilment of Decision IX/6, in the aspect of evaluating

alternatives, has become firmer as time has made more information about alternatives known

to applicants and Parties. Decision IX/6 b (iii) requires,

(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses

should be permitted only if: [...]

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to

evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of

alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the

circumstances of the particular nomination and the special needs of

Article 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert resources,

institutional capacity, and informati on. Non-Article 5 Parties must

demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and

deploy alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties must

demonstrate that feasible alterna tives shall be adopted as soon as

they are confirmed as suitable to the Party’s specific conditions

and/or that they have applied to the Multilateral Fund or other

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 17 sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and

demonstrating such options;

As in past years, some CUN documents indi cated that some applicants did not conduct

research, evaluate the research of others for ad aptation to their circumstance, and/or did not

send documents showing their effort to conduct r esearch and evaluate alternatives. In some

cases, these were small-operator applicants, or wh ere costs would have been prohibitive. In its

evaluations, MBTOC has not required all applican ts to conduct research where reasons for the

nomination were similar to other crops or comm odities, but did require technical justification

where CUNs were based on specific issues for that crop or commodity. In some cases,

MBTOC relied on its own knowledge to determine if alternatives would have been effective

in the circumstances of the nomination.

As applicants and Parties have become more familiar with alternatives, MBTOC has become

firmer in asking applicants and Parties to conduct research, evaluate research conducted by

others in the circumstances of their nomination and submit the results of research or

commercial trials to MBTOC. The information can take the form of research reports, trials in

field or in commercial applications, consulting repor ts etc, but should be directly pertinent to

the circumstances of that particular nomination. This further ensures that aspects of Decision

IX/6 are met.

In other instances, MBTOC has observed that some applicants have conducted research and

made efforts to adapt alternatives without su ccess. There are some difficult challenges for

some applicants. In some cases, MBTOC has used its knowledge and made suggestions to

Parties about potentially more rewarding research in the hope that these avenues of

investigation may assist Parties to evalua te and adopt suitable alternatives.

2.5.10 Sustainable Alternatives

In a large proportion of CUNs, the most curre ntly appropriate alternatives are chemical

fumigant alternatives, which themselves, like MB, have issues related to their long term

suitability for use. In both the EC and US, MB and most other fumigants are involved in a

rigorous review that could affect future regulati ons over their use for preplant soil fumigation.

MBTOC has been informed that the US govern ment has received a petition to stay (ie.

remove regulatory approval) the pesticide tolera nces for SF. Sulfuryl fluoride is a recently

approved, important, methyl bromide alternative for several post-harvest applications. A stay

or other action that removes the pesticide tolerance for SF would increase significantly

pressure to revert to MB in structural and commodity fumigation.

MBTOC urges Parties to consider the long te rm sustainability of treatments adopted as

alternatives to MB, to continue to adopt chem ical and non-chemical a lternatives for the short

to medium term and to develop sustainable IPM or non-chemical approaches for the longer

term. Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) refers to altern atives that are ‘acceptable from the standpoint of

environment and health’. MBTOC has consistently interpreted this to mean alternatives that

are registered or allowed by the relevant regulatory authorities in individual CUN regions.

2.5.11 Frequency of allowed MB use

In past and future CUN rounds, reductions in MB for both preplant soil and postharvest use

could be achieved in some nominations, where effective alternatives were identified, by

reducing the frequency of MB fumigations. In some countries, present regulations already

restrict the frequency of use of MB (e.g . to every second year) on similar crops and

circumstances to those nominated by other Par ties. MBTOC suggests that in these and other

instances MB may only be required every 2, 3 or 4 years and suggests that Parties further

consider reductions where appropriate. Using a lternating pest control measures may also help

# 18 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# provide or extend user confidence and experience in alternatives. New pest control measures

may also be good agricultural practice, reduc ing risk of development of tolerance and

providing control of a wider spectrum of pests.

2.5.12 Consideration of Stocks

MBTOC did not evaluate and/or did not take into account the use of stockpiles when making

recommendations. However one criterion for gran ting a critical use under Decision IX/6 is

that methyl bromide for the use “is not av ailable in sufficient quantity and quality from

existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide” (para. 1 (b) (ii)).

MBTOC has not systematically collected data on level of stocks or stockpiles present in

various countries and most Parties submitting CUNs did not specifically account for stocks.

However most Parties have submitted MB A ccounting Frameworks for 2005 to the Ozone

Secretariat as required by Decision XVI/6.

A summary of the quantity of MB held ‘in hand’ at the end of 2005, as reported by several

Parties, is summarised in Table 5. MBTOC h as not adjusted nominations to take account of

reported stocks; the Parties may wish to consider stocks as stated in Decision IX/6 1(b)(ii)

Table 5. Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginni ng and end of 2005, as reported by Parties under

Decision XVI/6.



# Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes)

Party Amount on

hand at start of

2005 Quantity

acquired for

CUEs in 2005

(production +

imports) Quantity used

for CUEs in

2005 Amount at the

end of 2005#

Australia 0.0 114.9 114.9 0.0

Canada 48.86 0.0

EC 216.2 2430.8 2530.0 116.5

Israel 16.358 1,072.35 1,088.708 0

Japan 0.0 546.8 546.8 0.0

New Zealand 6.9 40.5 44.58 2.8

USA(a) 7,613 7,170 443

(a) - Additional information on stocks as reported by US EPA website, September 2006: Methyl bromide

inventory held by US companies: 2004 = 12,994 tonnes; 2005 = 9,974 tonnes



# 2.5.13 Use of MB for Research

Decision XVII/9(7), on critical uses authorised for 2006 and 2007, requested Parties to

endeavour to use stocks, where available, to meet any demand for MB for research.

In Table 9, MBTOC has indicated separatel y the quantities recommended for research, for

consideration by the Parties. A total of 15.571 tonnes were requested for this purpose in 10

CUNs in 2006.



# 2.6 Decisions Ex.I/4(9d) and Decision XVII/9(10)

Decision XVII/9(10) of the 17th MOP requests TEAP and its MBTOC to “report for 2005

and annually thereafter, for each agreed critical use category, the amount of methyl bromide

nominated by a Party, the amount of the agreed critical use and either:

(a) The amount licensed, permitted or authorized; or

(b) The amount used

# Sepember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 19 Decision Ex.I/4 requested MBTOC to “submit a report to the Open-ended Working Group at

its twenty-sixth session on the possible need for methyl bromide critical uses over the next

few years, based on a review of the management strategies submitted by Parties pursuant to

paragraph 3 of the present decision. At the twen ty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Group, an

initial summarization of the national management strategies that were available to MBTOC at

that time was presented. At the suggestion of MBTOC, the Parties agreed that MBTOC

would provide an update to the Parties at th eir Eighteenth Meeting. The following sections

address those tasks.

Decision Ex.I/4 (3) required the Parties making a critical-use nomination after 2005 to submit

a national management strategy for the phase out of the critical use of MB. As requested by

the Parties in decision Ex.I/4 (9d), TEAP th rough its MBTOC reviewed the management

strategies to prepare a report to the twenty-s ixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group

on the possible need for methyl bromide critical uses over the next few years.

All the seven relevant Parties have submitted th eir management strategies. One Party, the

European Community, covers the strategy of its member states that have critical uses. A

summary of the seven management strategies is given in Table 6 below.

Table 7 provides the estimated annual CUE quantities for the next few years, i.e. 2008-2010.

Trends in nominated and exempted amounts of methyl bromide granted by the Parties

contained in Table 7 have also been used to in the estimation of the future needs. MBTOC

estimates that the CUE quantities will continue to decrease over the next few years, but

information provided by Parties is not sufficient to predict amounts beyond this period. The

estimated annual quantity of MB required for cont rolled uses in non A5 countries as CUEs is

6234 for 2008; 5920 for 2009 and 2010, howev er these amounts will be influenced by

outcomes of the 18 th 

# MOP (Table 7).20September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportTable 6. Summary of CUE trends and information provided in National Management Strategies for phase-out of critical-use exemptionsCUE industry2007/2008)CUEs approved by MOP(tonnes)CUNs(tonnes)Expected or planned schedulefor MB phase-out for CriticalUsesConstraints to Phase Out and progress with evaluation ofalternatives2005 2006 2007 2007(new)2008Australia Rice, strawberry,protected flowers146.6 75.1 40.88 10.25 51.1 Reduce the imports of methylbromide to zero by 2010 or earlier.CUE holders to identify andtransition to alternatives before2010.Turf growers and flourmills havebeen using stocks from before2005 and have not requested CUEsso far.Demonstrating technical and economic feasibility for VIF(LPBF) barrier films will require the AustralianIndustry to overcome some barriers that currently preventwidespread adoption.A national programme tested more than 20 alternatives. Anumber of non-fumigant treatments (bio-fumigants, steam, hotwater and solarisation) have also been tested. Telone C 35,methyl iodide and ethanedintrile are considered to be theprospective in the short term. However all require further trialsand/or registration.Telone C 35 (a 1,3- dichloropropene/ chloropicrin mixture) hasbeen identified and registered for the fruit industry, but not yetfor the strawberry runner industry.Canada Mills, strawberryrunners61.79 53.90 39.99 12.87 36.11 As fast as possible followingtransition strategy principles tophase-out. No figures provided.Potential alternatives have been identified for the relevantindustries.The government is committed to a priority review of thetechnology/substances identified and submitted (by thetechnology owner) as alternatives to methyl bromide.The Canadian National Millers Association (CNMA) hascompleted one collaborative project to evaluate alternatives withthe support of AAFC and is currently managing a second twoyear (2005-2006) initiative to assist companies and pest controlsservice providers in evaluating alternatives. Results of theevaluations will be published by CNMA by the first quarter of2007.EuropeanCommunity*Chestnuts, mills,seeds, carrots,cucumbers, cutflowersand bulbs, eggplant,nurseries, orchardreplant, pepper,strawberry (fruit andrunners), tomato, driedfruit, processors,artefacts, melon,coffee and cocoabeans, herbs and4392.812 3536.755 0 1280.09 0 Expected rates of adoption ofalternatives are provided for themain categories of critical uses.Phase out is expected for mostmajor uses within one year exceptfor strawberry runners which ispredicted at two years.The total CUE amounts actuallyused for each category of criticaluse are provided.Information on the development and registration of alternativesis provided including possible ‘constraints’ (e.g. research, deregistration/continued availability of MB) and areas whereefforts need to be made to ensure success in adoption anddissemination of alternatives (e.g. technology/informationtransfer , registration of alternatives and training). These factorshave been taken into consideration in the estimation of theadoption rates in the critical use categories.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report21CUE industry2007/2008)CUEs approved by MOP(tonnes)CUNs(tonnes)Expected or planned schedulefor MB phase-out for CriticalUsesConstraints to Phase Out and progress with evaluation ofalternatives2005 2006 2007 2007(new)2008mushrooms, aircraft,cheese, spices,structuresInformation on the EC directiveson MB critical use nomination anduse criteria are provided.Israel Dates, flour mills,furniture, museums.Broomrape, cucumber,cutflowers fruit treenurseries, melon,potato, strawberry fruitand runners, tomato1089.306 880.295 0 1147.112 - The situations and the CUE phaseout strategy for each critical usecategory are provided togetherwith estimated year for theadoption of the alternatives.The constraints that exist in adopting alternatives in some of thesectors is explained for many sectors, including for those wherethe adoption of alternatives is particularly difficult (e.g.strawberry fruit and nurseries)Japan Chestnuts, cucumber,ginger, pepper,melons, watermelons748 741.4 636.172 0 589.6 Will ensure the reduction ofcritical uses nominationsuccessively. No figures providedNMS to promote the phase-out ofuses of methyl bromide as soon astechnically and economicallyfeasible.Difficult to suggest standardreduction level in general.Experimental research plan for the development of pest controlfor crop diseases and virus (in e.g. peppers); development ofalternative technologies ongoing. Prospective alternatives (testsdone):1.methyl iodide fumigation and storage under lowtemperature and high humidity to control chestnut weevil2.control of melon necrotic spot virus (MNSV) with the useof resistant stock - demonstration field test on the efficacy3.green pepper resistant variety with L4 gene against peppertobamovirus.New Zealand Strawberry fruit,strawberry runners50 42 0 30.50 - Government has determined that2007 will be the last nominationsthat will be supported for thecritical use of methyl bromide bythe strawberry industry.The most likely alternative is Telone C35. It is recognised thereare ongoing difficulties with the effectiveness of this product,especially in sub-optimal weather conditions. Current researchinto alternatives will not be completed until September 2007.USA Dried commodities,mills and processors,ham, cucurbits,eggplant, forestseedlings, nurseries,orchard replant,ornamentals, peppers,strawberry fruit,strawberry nurseries,tomatoes, turfgrass,sweet potato9552.879 8081.753 6749.0600 6415.153Manage CUEs in accordance withthe policies, procedures andregulations that are in place toaddress the elements in Ex.I/4(3)(i.e. avoid increases except underunforeseen circumstances;encourage use of alternatives;provide information on thepotential market penetration ofalternatives; promote emissionsreductions measures; provide adescription of phase-in of feasiblealternatives)Sector-by-sector description of the status of alternatives isprovided.*Member states of the EuropeanCommunity (EC) requesting CUEs for 2007 includeFrance, Greece, Ireland,Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom.Other EC members states that have requested CUNs after 2005include – Belgium, Germany,Latvia, Malta, and Portugal.22September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportTable 7.Summary of estimated trends in Future Need for Methyl Bromide inNon A5 countries as determined from the Critical Use Exemptions andestimations from information provided in the National Management Plans in 2006 (Figures are in metric tonnes) as required in Decision Ex 1/4(9d).CUE’s recommended by MBTOC for 2007 and 2008 have been included.Quantities approvedor recommended by MBTOCEstimated Future Need for MB as Indicated inCUE’s and National Management PlansParty2005(1ExMOP and16MOP)2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)2007(17MOP + MBTOCrecom forMOP18)2008 (MBTOCrecom forMOP18)2008 2009 2010Australia146.600 75.100 [46.728] [39.25][39] {39} {39}Canada61.792 53.897 46.745 [42.241][42.241] {42} 42EuropeanCommunity4392.812 3536.755 [689.142] NA {320} 0 0Israel1089.306 880.295 [933.315] NA{1050} {1050} {1050}Japan748.000 741.400 636.172 [443.775][443.775] {443} {443}New Zealand50.000 42.000 [6.234] NA {6} {6} {6}USA9552.879 8081.753 6749.06 [4339.41][4339.41] [4339} {4339}TOTALS16050.089 13418.200 [9098.348] [4852.176][6234] {5920} {5920}NA - No CUN application yet. [ ] - Depenedent on 18thMOP outcome. { } - Estimated amounts only whichare not reduced for stocks/inventory available

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 23 Figure 4. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE/ CUN (figure on left)and relative reduction in

nominated amounts for CUNs by Party (figures on the right) for preplant soil uses in industries from

2005 to 2008. Solid lines indicate trends in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of

methyl bromide nominated by the Party in 2006 for either 2007 or 2008.

Reduction in MB Use (%)in 2007 cf. 1998

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Australia France Greece Italy Spain USA

Parties 

# Tomatoes

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

2005 2006 2007 2008

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Belgium

Greece

Italy

USA 

# Strawberry Fruit

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2005 2006 2007 2008

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

United Kingdom

USA 

# Reduction in MB Use (%) in 2007 cf. 1998

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

A u s tral

ia France

Is rae

l Italy New Zealand

S p ain UK US A



# Parties

# 24 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# F

igure 4 (Cont.). Amounts of MB exempted for CUE/CUN for preplant soil uses in industries from

2005 to 2008. Solid lines indicate trends in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of

methyl bromide nominated (CUN) by the Party in 2006 for either 2007 or 2008.

Orchard replant

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2005 2006 2007 2008

Yearmetric tonnes



# France

USA 

# Peppers and Eggplant

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

2005 2006 2007 2008

Yearsmetric tonnes 

# Belgium

France

Italy

Japan

Spain

USA 

# Cucurbits and Melons

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2005 2006 2007 2008

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA 

# C utflow ers

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

2005 2006 2007 2008

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 25 Figure 5. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in mills and food processing facilities from 2005

to 2008. Solid lines indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indi cate quantity of methyl

bromide nominated by the party in either 2007 or 2008.

All Food Processing and Milling

(Not Commodities)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2005 2006 2007 2008

Yearmetric tonnes 

# Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USA

# 26 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# Table 8. List of nominated (2005 – 2008 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2007 in part) amounts of

methyl bromide granted by Parties under the CUN/CUE process. (Note: A breakdown of CUN and

CUE amounts by commodity is given in ANNEX IV)

FINAL NOMINATIONS SUBMITTED

BY THE PARTIES QUANTITIES APPROVED BY THE PARTIES

(agreed critical use categories) Party

Total

Nominatio

n

2005 Total

Nominatio

n

2006 Total

Nominatio

n

For 2007 Nominatio

n for 2008

made in

2006 2005

(1ExMOP

and

16MOP) 2006

(16MOP+

2ExMOP+

17MOP) 2007

(17MOP +

MBTOC

recom for

MOP18) 2008

(MBTOC

recom for

MOP18)

Australia 206.95 81.25 52.145 51.100 146.6 75.1 [46.728] [39.25]

Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 61.792 53.897 [46.745] [42.241]

European

Community 1 

# 5754.361 4213.47 1239.873 0 4392.812 3536.755 [689.142] NA

Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 0 1089.306 880.295 [933.315

Japan 748 738.7 651.7 589.600 748 741.4 636.172 [443.775]

New Zealand 53.085 53.085 32.573 50 42 [6.234] NA

Switzerland 8.7 7 0 0 8.7 7 0 NA

USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 9552.879 8081.753 6749.06 [4339.41]

TOTALS 18704.24 15615.135 10677.552 [7098.094] 16050.089 13418.200 [9107.396] [4864.676]



# NA – Not available yet; [ ] Final amounts not yet known

1 Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs in 2005 – 2007 include: Belgium, France, Germany,

Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherl ands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 27 2.7 Final Evaluations of CUNs s ubmitted in 2006 for 2007 or 2008.

2.7.1 Details of evaluations

MBTOC/TEAP assessed the 90 CUNs and recommended 47 in the interim report in May,

with 36 placed in the ‘unable to assess’ cat egory. 11 CUNs were not recommended.

During its second meeting in Yokohama at th e end of August, MBTOC/TEAP reassessed 35

CUNs that had been placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category (one CUN was withdrawn).

Nine CUNs were reassessed at the request of the Parties (Australia, Japan, Italy and the US)

and one CUN was withdrawn (Ireland mills). Four CUNs were not recommended.

In 2006, a total amount of 6498.765 tonnes of MB has been recommended, 1634.089 tonnes

for 2007 and 4864.676 tonnes for 2008. A total of 858.590 tonnes were not recommended for

2007 and 2226.661 tonnes for 2008 for a total of 3085.251 tonnes of MB not recommended in

this round of CUNs.

Table 9 includes all evaluations of CUNs made in the final report on the 2006 round of

nominations. The evaluations given in Table 9 are by consensus of MBTOC, with exceptions

for the evaluations relating to CUNs from th e US for 2008 for eggplant, peppers, tomatoes

and the SE region for strawberry fruit.

2.7.2 Minority statement

TEAP Comment:

Under the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Terms of Reference, reports

are developed by consensus and must reflect any minority views appropriately.

In almost twenty years of reports by TEAP, TOCs, and Temporary Subsidiary Bodies (TSBs),

there have been fewer than five minority statements . However, two of these previous minority

statements involved issues rel ated to methyl bromide.

This MBTOC report includes the third such minority statement regarding methyl bromide

critical use exemption recommendations submitte d by four experts from one country who

asked that their names not be listed.

After consultation with the MBTOC Co-Chairs, the TEAP Co-Chairs honoured this request

for anonymity, with reservation. On this matter, TEAP seeks guidance of the Parties on

whether future minority statements, if any, can be submitted anonymously.

Stephen O. Andersen, Lambert Kuijpe rs and Jose Pons, TEAP Co-Chairs

In a show of hands at the Yokohama mee ting where evaluations of these CUNs were

finalised, 4 MBTOC members (13% of those pr esent) disagreed with the majority position

given in Table 9 to CUNs from the US for 2008 for eggplant, peppers, tomatoes and the SE

region for strawberry fruit.

The minority provided the following statement:

“MBTOC did not reach consensus on nominations from the United States for tomato, pepper,

eggplant, and strawberry fruit in the Sout hEast. Among the MBTOC members present, 13%

identified themselves as in agreement with a minority position, while the remaining 87%

# 28 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# either agreed with the majority position or did not indicate a position. This minority of

members finds that in deciding MBTOC’s recommendation for these US CUNs MBTOC did

not fully consider the specific circumstances of these four nominations.

The minority position is that MBTOC should defer to transition times submitted by Parties

and not impose different transition times. In th e case of the CUNs for US tomatoes, peppers,

eggplant and strawberry fruit in the South East Region, the Party has provided data on the

amount of production that currently relies on methyl bromide which can transition to

technically and economically feasible alterna tives over time and provides a transition rate,

either as an annual rate or as a multi-year timeline. We believe MBTOC should show

deference to that information, unless MBTO C can document evidence supporting a different

transition rate in the specific circumstances of the nomination. In these cases, the minority did

not believe the evidence submitted was valid in the circumstances of these nominations.

The majority has recommended reducing the f our nominations named above based on a 25%

transition rate citing experience in Spain, Ital y, and Australia, despite information from the

Party which contained specific transition inform ation, different from 25% in 2008. We note

that although transition experiences in Spain, It aly, and Australia are cited as the basis for

MBTOC’s decision, Italy submitted nominations for 2007 for eggplant, pepper, strawberry,

tomato, and melon and Spain s ubmitted nominations for pepper an d strawberry for 2007.

Furthermore, the majority do not make clear that the transition rate in some other countries

cannot be attributed entirely to commercial acc eptance of methyl bromide alternatives, but

rather to regulatory regimes that limited th e availability of methyl bromide. Thus, the

proposed transition rate of 25 percent in 2008 for the four commodities in the United States

does not consider the specific circumstances existi ng in the United States. Other Parties have

been able to impose regulatory or licensing limits on use of methyl bromide, decreasing

methyl bromide allocations to less than critical uses granted under the Montreal Protocol. In

the United States, domestic regulation allo cates methyl bromide in accordance with the

quantity of methyl bromide approved by the Pa rties for critical uses, unless local regulatory

and industry circumstances allow fo r more transition to alternatives. Within the limits of the

amounts approved under the Montreal Protocol , and within the limitation of domestic

regulatory approval of alternatives, technical a nd economic feasibility determines transition to

alternatives, using research, education and extension efforts as a basis.

The minority holds that unless MBTOC has comp elling evidence fully applicable to the

circumstances of the nominations, MBTOC s hould rely on the Party’s determination of

feasible transition timelines. The minority finds the cited experiences in Australia, Italy, and

Spain are not sufficiently convincing and that the specific circumstances of the four US

nominations were not fully considered.”September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report29Table 9. Final evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2006 for 2007 or 2008Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand16MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17)Quantitynominatedfor 2007(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2008MBTOCrecommendationfor 2007MBTOCrecommendationfor 2008MBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsAustralia cutflowers- bulbs -protected7.000 7.000 none 6.170 6.150 3.598 3.5 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 3.598tonnes for this CUN for 2007 and 3.5 tonnes for 2008.The CUN states that MB is required to controlsoilborne fungi and weeds affecting a variety of cutflowers and bulbs grown under cover. The nominatedamount has been reduced to adjust to MBTOC'sstandard presumptions of 35 g/m2 MB withuse/emission control technologies. The Party hasconducted research showing that this dosage rate iseffective under LPBF and commercial adoption of thismaterial is underway (Mannet al, 2005).The CUNstates that although some flower types are alreadybeing produced in substrates, this technology is noteconomically feasible in certain cases (lilies, iris).Steam is not feasible due to sloping terrain andtechniques like plate steaming are not available. 1,3-D+ Pic and MB formulationswith higher chloropicrincontent cannot be used in closed greenhouses.Plantback times with other fumigants may be too longbut trials are underway to solve this constraint. TheParty has also identified that MI is an effectivealternative to MB, but is not yet registered (Mann et al,2005).CUN states that transition tosoil-less culture has occurred forsome crops where profits are notcompromised, but for lilies, iris,etc. soil-less culture usingcurrently available substrates isnot considered to beeconomically feasible. Noeconomic data on alternativesgiven30September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsAustralia Rice 6.150 6.150 5.130 4.075 2.250 MBTOC recommends 2.25 tonnes as a supplementalamount of methyl bromide for 2007. This is about44.4% of the nominated amount of 4.075 tonnesrequested by the Party. The Parties have alreadygranted 5.13 tonnes of MB for 2007. If the Partiesgrant this supplemental recommended amount,Australia will receive 7.38 tonnes of MB for 2007 intotal. With its supplemental request of 4.075 added tothe amount already granted by the Parties (5.13tonnes), the Party requested a 50% increase in MB for2007 (a total of 9.205 tonnes) over 2006 levels (6.15tonnes), for a crop that is expected to be roughly 20%larger than in 2006. The Party requested thesupplemental amount for the expected high harvest anda resulting higher non-QPS volume of rice requiringfumigation for 2007. Although the relationshipbetween requirements for non-QPS fumigation in yearsof high and low harvest is said to be not linear, andtherefore MBTOC may not have understood thejustification, MBTOC only recommends a 20%increase over 2006 levels, consistent with the 20%increase in expected harvest. (Non-QPS rice is definedas rice for consumption in Australia and New Zealand.)In reviewing this CUN, MBTOC has been unable toreconcile an apparent difference in statistics. Althoughthe CUN has indicated non-QPS rice (essentiallydomestic consumption), will be approximately 260,000tonnes in 2007, according to other governmentreferences (Australia Commodity Statistics, 2005),domestic consumption does not seem likely to be thathigh. MBTOC has no consumption statistics for 2006,but in 2005 domestic consumption (table rice includingimports and excluding processing) was 156,000 tonnes.Over the previous 5 years, domestic consumptionchanged little and was not correlated with size ofharvest. Domestic consumption grew at about 4 tonnesper year over that period of time. In considering theCUN and taking note of these other governmentstatistics, MBTOC decided its recommendation of 2.25tonnes supplemental for 2007 based on the CUNdocuments. However, if the domestic consumption isindeed only about 160,000 tonnes, the Government ofAustralia may wish to consider licensing only 1 tonneCUN states that Australian ricegrowers will consider investingin infrastructure and facilities tofumigate rice after it has beenmilled but before it has beenpackaged (intermediate rice); orfumigate inside packs(packaging review project).Current estimates suggest thatthe cost of an intermediatestorage system would be in theregion of $20,000,000; withalteration of packaging in theregion of $2,000,000 to$3,000,000 per site plus adoubling in packaging costs perunit.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report31Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsof the supplemental amount recommended byMBTOC. Then, the total MB used in 2007 would bethe same amount granted by the Parties in 2006 (6.15tonnes) for essentially the same requirement of nonQPS fumigated rice. Additionally, MBTOC isconcerned that the Party has not achieved anytransition to alternatives since phase out, in spite ofavailability of effective treatments in other countries.These treatments, however, require investment that theParty has indicated it can not afford because they haveexperienced several years of poor harvest.Australia Rice 9.200 U MBTOC is unable to assess this nomination for 2008.Since the 2008 rice harvest will occur in April 2008,and treatment would not be required until after ricedrying, milling and packaging, there is time for theParty to re-nominate for this use in 2007 if methylbromide is still critically needed. Information isrequested from the Party thatcan not be delivered atthe time of MBTOC’s 2006 meeting. Additionally,MBTOC is not convinced atthis time of the criticalneed, for MB for post-milling fumigation within theconfines of Decision IX/6. MBTOC is concerned thatthe applicant may be requesting MB as contingencyagainst possible complaintsbecause its pre-processingfumigations are ineffective and because its packagingmethods allow re-infestation. Specifically, (1) MBTOCneeds to resolve the difference in domesticconsumption requirements since this is the volume ofnon-QPS rice that is fumigated. (2) Improvements infacilities would allow phosphine to be used toeffectively fumigate paddy rice with the effect thatsurvivingSitophiluseggs would be virtually nil. Doingso would require investmenthowever, and to minimizecosts the applicant may wish to investigate plasticbubble and tunnel systems in use for grain fumigationin other countries and if these are not consideredaffordable, report economic data to MBTOC. (3) Ifphosphine fumigations were properly conducted insealed structures only a maximum of 1% of theremainingSitophiluseggs would be expected tosurvive milling (dependingon the percentage ofmilling) (Lucas and Riudavets, 2000; Ducom-Gallerneand Vinghes, 2001). Researchsubmitted with the CUNindicates that ethyl formate added to sealed rice packs32September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsis effective to control those survivingSitophiluseggs.MBTOC requests data substantiating why this process(proper phosphine fumigationsand ethyl formate inpackages) can not be implemented since it seems itcould resolve any potential problem ofSitophiluseggsremaining after milling. (4) MBTOC’s assessment isthat the applicant needs to implement non MBprotection methods and packaging procedures thatprevent post-packaging insect infestation. Theapplicant is requested to give a detailed economicjustification if these packaging improvements can notbe made. Please explain whythe applicant does not useinsect-proof packaging since that would prevent postprocess insect infestation.Consumer complaints afterrice packages are fumigated indicate that methylbromide is an inappropriate tool to prevent postpackaging infestation.Post-packaging insectcontamination possibly occurs because the applicantpunches holes in the packaging material. Thepackaging method used by the applicant brings intoquestion the justification for using methyl bromide. (5)The applicant is encouragedto develop a transitionplan based on effective use of alternative proceduresand other control methods that will ensure decreasedreliance on methyl bromide.Australia Strawberryrunners35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 35.750 MBTOC recommends that 35.75 tonnes of MB beapproved for this use in 2008. The party's requestexceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 20 g/m2 ofMB which is considered effective for production of'high health' strawberry runners using LPBF and otheremission control technologies (UNEP/TEAP October2005); however, rates of use that conform withMBTOC's standard presumption are not currentlyregistered and therefore cannot be used commerciallyto treat soils. The CUN statesthat MB is required tomeet certification standards. A key alternative, 1,3-D/Pic, is used in a portion of the runner industry butuptake is limited by phytotoxicity due to the heavy andwet soil conditions during fumigation. The CUNprovided recent data from a specific local trialindicated that phytotoxicity in runners resulted in adoubling of the time required before planting comparedto MB. Although 1,3-D/Pic is an effective alternativeto MB in strawberry runner production, at this time theCUN states data are not yetavailable to enable an economicevaluation of alternatives.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report33Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicseffects of this alternative on the number of runnerplants produced and the costs of additional weedcontrol measures required are considered prohibitive.The CUN states that plug plants are a technicallyfeasible alternative but thatthe costs associated withthis technology are too high. The party is currentlyexamining the efficacy of 30:70 mixtures of MB:PIC toreduce this rate. MBTOC considers glues andtechnologies are available to implement LPBF films.The Party notes that two currently unregisteredalternatives appear promising, methyl idodide andethane dinitrile (Mann etal, 2005; Mattner et al, 2003).The Party is requested in future nominations todemonstrate that alternatives do not achieve thepathogen and pest tolerance levels to meet certificationrequirementsCanada Mills 47 (includedmills andpasta)34.774 30.167(includedmills only)none 28.650 28.650 MBTOC recommends 28.650 tonnes for 2008 for thisuse. This amount represents a 20% reduction over theCUE for 2006, and a further 5% reduction for 2008over 2007 CUE. The Party continues to conduct fieldtrials of various alternatives adapting heat, phosphineand sulfuryl fluoride. Sulfuryl fluoride currently hasregistration that only allows experimental trials. TheParty has indicated it will reassess the quantity of MBpermitted for use should circumstances of thenomination change. If new fumigants becomecommercially registered, and if efficacy is provenunder the Canadian circumstances, and/or if furthertrials with heat (alone or in combination with otherinsecticidal treatments) allow further adoption, itshould be possible to reduce the amount of methylbromide allowed.CUN provided no economicdata. CUN based on technicalfeasibility reasons.Canada Pasta (see Canadamills)10.457 none 6.757 6.757 MBTOC recommends 6.757 tonnes for this use in2007. This corresponds to a reduction of more than35% over the amount granted by the Parties in 2005.MBTOC notes that sulfuryl fluoride is registered onlyfor empty facilities and it isnot feasible to empty pastafacilities completely of finished product. Furthermorethere is currently no MRL for fluoride residue forfoods in Canada. While heatis an alternative todisinfest production areas offacilities, it can not beused for facilities containing finished product.MBTOC notes industry efforts to increase use of IPMsuch as cleaning and structural improvements to reduceCUN states that Sulfurylfluoride is the most promisingalternative but its efficacy andcost have not been evaluated asSF was only recentlyconditionally approved. CUNalso states that the cost of heattreatment is at least twice thecost of methyl bromide. Thiscost increased to three or fourtimes when the cost ofmonitoring is included.34September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsthe level of insect infestations. Implementing elementsof IPM such as obtaining a pest audit followed by pestmonitoring should improve information to managepests better with non-MB treatments or reducefrequency of MB fumigation. These alternatives mayresult in reduced requirements for MB in subsequentyears. MBTOC further notes that it should be possibleto use heat in the production area and asks theapplicant to investigate thefeasibility of separating theproduction part of the facilityfrom the finished productstorage area to facilitate adoption of this alternative.MBTOC agrees with theapplicant that certainstructural features of facilities need improvement toprevent infestations and encourages industry toinvestigate structural changes that minimize insectharbourages to reduce need for whole-structurefumigation. For any future CUN, MBTOC hopes toreceive extensive, detailed research or commercial trialdata evaluating the technical effectiveness andeconomic feasibility of alternatives used in othercountries and why these alternatives are not applicablein the circumstances of Canada. Specifically, (1)effectiveness of improvements in IPM, including a pestaudit, cleaning, facility improvements, monitoring andinspection, (2) facility heattreatments, and (3) sulfurylfluoride when applicable.Canada Strawberryrunners(Ontario)none none none 6.129 6.129 MBTOC recommends that 6.129 tonnes of MB beapproved for this use in 2008. The Party's requestexceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 20 g/m2of MB which is considered effective for production of'high health' strawberry runners using LPBF films andother emission control technologies (UNEP/TEAPOctober 2005); however, formulations that conformwith MBTOC's standard presumption are not currentlyregistered in Canada andtherefore cannot be usedcommercially to treat soils.The CUN states that MB isrequired to meet certification standards. Trials showthat still lower rates are effective. The Party requestsMB for the first 2 years of their 3-year productioncycle. In the 3rd year the Party uses fish emulsion,compost with kelp seaweed and folic humic acid tosuppress soil pathogens and accelerate good biology inthe plants. The Party states that due to the very coolweather 1,3-D + PIC has a vastly reduced effectivenessCUN argues that although thecost of MBr vs. biologicalingredients is comparable,labour costs are some 10%higher for weed control.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report35Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicscompared to MB. Currently only the 67:33 MB:PICmixture formulation is registered.Canada Strawberryrunners(PEI)6.840 6.840 7.9957.462 7.462 MBTOC recommends that 7.462 tonnes of MB beapproved for this use in 2008. The Party's requestexceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 20 g/m2 ofMB which is considered effective for production of'high health' strawberry runners using LPBF films andother emission control technologies (UNEP/TEAPOctober 2005); however, formulations that conformwith MBTOC's standard presumption are not currentlyregistered in Canada andtherefore cannot be usedcommercially to treat soils.The CUN states that MBis required to meet certification standards. The Partyhas attempted to replace MB with 1,3-D, but 1,3-D wasbanned in January 2003 due to groundwatercontamination. The Party has initiated trials todetermine the feasibility of organic production.Currently only the 67:33 MB:PIC mixture formulationis registered in Canada. Chloropicrin 100 has recentlybeen provisionally registered in Canada, but the Partyhas not yet had the opportunity to fully evaluate thisalternative.CUN provided no economicdata. CUN based on technicalfeasibility reasons.France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 none 1.800 1.800 MBTOC recommends 1.800 tonnes for this use in2007. The CUN relates particularly to fresh marketchestnuts, which impacts the technical availability ofalternative treatments, compared for chestnuts used forprocessing. Although the Party has conducted researchtrials on many potential alternatives, there are noregistered alternatives that do not harm the quality andmarketability of fresh marketchestnuts. Unlike othernuts which are durable commodities, chestnuts are ahigh moisture, semi-perishable food. They areharvested one day, fumigated overnight and sold toconsumers the next day or very soon after. Chestnuts inFrance are subject to pests that requires a longertreatment time than are fresh market chestnuts in someother countries (Cydia splendana(Hubner) andCurculio elephas(Gyllenhal)). The immediatemarketing channel allows the Party to use a low dosageconsistent with the need toonly kill some life stages.The Party has conducted successful preliminaryefficacy tests with ethyl formate, a treatment that mayallow an organic certification, but registration andCUN states that disinfestation bywater immersion takes twoweeks, hence sellers lose thistime in the peak market window.Furthermore, soaking costs 60times the cost of MBr.Moreover, quality is poorer;hence they will get lower prices.36September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsadoption of maximum residue levels has not yet beencompleted.France Mills 40.000 35.000 none8.000 8.000 MBTOC recommends 8 tonnes for France mills in2007. Sulfuryl fluoride was very recently registered forthis application (March 2006). Although a rapidadoption rate has been proposed, some time is neededto efficiently transition toalternatives. Given therelatively low amount of MB requested by the Party, inthe face of numerous mills that will require pestcontrol, the Party might need to consider allocationstrategies that reserve MB for those mills whose size,layout and design, age and/or location make transitionmost difficult. MBTOC’s knowledge of sulfurylfluoride and heat treatments indicate that more time isrequired to develop effective strategies to treat thelarger, more complex mills in locations with coolertemperatures because sometimes a combinationtreatment is required.CUN states that the cost of SF is2.5 x that of MBr, leading tosignificant loss in benefit.France Seeds 0.135 0.135 none 0.100 0.096 MBTOC recommends 0.096 tonnes for this use in2007. This amount is for 0.024 tonnes againstnematodes for alfalfa seeds and 0.072 tonnes againstbruchidsinsects in beans and peas. In correspondencein August 2006, the Party submitted these newlynominated MB volumes, a slight decrease over theoriginal nomination. MBTOC knows of no effectivetreatment to control nematodes in seeds. For bruchidcontrol in seeds, the Partyjustifies the requirement formethyl bromide as a businesslogistics issue. The seedcompany maintains that its customers require such fastdelivery of seeds that only MB, and in fact only MB atthe high dosage rates needed for 4 and 2 hr vacuumtreatment, will satisfy their business needs. PH3 isregistered and effective and in use in other countries.However, PH3 requires several days for treatmentagainst bruchids. For the future, the Party isencouraged to test fast methods of heat treatment,which may be effective and fast against bruchids whilemaintaining germination, orto transition to phosphineor inert atmospheres. Additionally, MBTOC will wantinformation identifying the particular seed nematodeinvolved and substantiating that nematodes can bepresent in clean seeds.CUN states that pesticides,which they argue are partiallytechnically feasible andregistered, costs up to 7x asmuch as MBr to apply. CUNalso argues a loss of marketopportunity, but lacks data toquantify this.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report37Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsFrance Carrots 8.000 8.000 none 5.000 1.400 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount 1.4 tonnes forthis use in 2007. This is for treating 4 Ha at 350 kg perha with use/ emission reduction technologies accordingto MBTOCs standard presumptions at a dosage of 350kg/ha. MBTOC notes some contradictions between theCUN and answers submitted by the Party to MBTOC'squestions particularly in relation to the treated area.Carrots are grown worldwide without MB; however,the EC has recognized theexceptional circumstancesfor this crop and disease complex involving varioussoil borne pathogens (Fusarium solani, R.violacea,Pythium, Heterodera) and weeds. 1,3 D+ Pic is notregistered in France and dazomet is efficient onlyunder certain climatic conditions.The CUN is based on lack ofproven technically feasiblealternative rather thandemonstrated lack of economicfeasibility.France Cucumbers 60.000 60.000 none 15.000 12.500 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 12.5 tonnesof MB for this use in 2007. The calculation of thenomination is based on the standard presumption of175 kg per Ha under LPBFusing use/emissionreduction technologies. Thenomination is for 35 ha ofproduction area. Although this rate is higher than thestandard pathogen control rate of 150 kg/ha,Phomopsis sclelotioidesis particularly difficult tocontrol and requires the higher rate usually applied fornutsedge control. Limited alternatives are available inFrance, as chloropicrin or mixtures of this materialwith other chemicals are not registered. A largeproportion of cucumber production is already insoilless culture (75%), but adoption of this alternativein the remaining cropping area is considereduneconomic by the Party. It is anticipated thatregistration of chloropicrin, use of grafted plants toimprove disease control and expansion of soillessculture will further reduce the need for methyl bromidein the near future (Fritsch, 2002). The amount ofmethyl bromide recommended is a 97% reduction inuse of MB since 1997.CUN states that although thecost of chemical alternatives islower, yield losses result inlower net revenue (by 15 to 30%depending on source). The lossin net revenue for soillesscultivation (greenhouses) isslightly lessFrance Cutflowersand bulbs60.000 52.000 none 12.000 9.600 MBTOC recommends 9.6 t for this use in 2007. Theparty reduced the Member State’s request, but providedno information on whether these reductions were dueto reductions in rate, changes in formulation, uptake ofbarrier films or transition to alternatives. The party hasaveraged a transition reduction in the amount of MBnominated of 20% per year over the 2005 to 2006interval. In light of available information aboutCUN states that solarizationcarries high economic riskbecause the loss in revenue fromthe second crop is larger than thecost saving from fumigation,that steam disinfestation costsmore than 15000 € per ha, andthat adoption of soil-less38September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsalternatives, MBTOC adjusted the recommendedamount to account for 20% adoption of alternatives in2008. MBTOC did not adjust the rate to MBTOC’sstandard presumptions due to France’s regulationsetting a minimum rate of 50 g/m2. The nomination isfor soilborne fungi, nematodes and weeds affectingdifferent kinds of flowersgrown in open fields andunder cover. The party hasindicated that steam, croprotation between growers, substrates (for rose,gerbera), metam sodium, and solarisation (foranemone, ranunculus) could be adopted on some CUNareas. MBTOC considers that alternatives for somesituations include methamsodium applied by improvedmethods, metham+ short period of solarisation,metham+1,3-D (Sachs et al. 2002; Runia andMolendijk, 2006; Barel, 2004; Navas-Becerra et al.2002; Reuven et al. 2002; Gullino, 2003). Substratesare commercially available for crops such as rose,gerbera, carnation, gypsophila, alstroemeria, anemone,anthurium, tulip, freesia, lilies and narcissus (Drakes etal. 2001; Savvas and Passam, 2002; Savvas, 2004;Tognoni and Pardossi, 2000;Tribulato and Noto, 2001;Minuto et al. 2002; Kipp et al. 2000). The party sayssubstates are too expensive, however low-costsubstrates are commercially available for some of theseflower crops (Mutitu et al. 2006; Calderón, 2001;UNIDO, 2004). If future nominations are submitted,clarification on rates, formulations, emission reductionstrategies, and adoption rates of alternatives, includingeconomic analyses, will be required for MBTOC to beable to evaluate the nomination. An application forregistration of chloropicrin was submitted in 2005.MBTOC notes that efforts are being made by that theparty to amend the regulation no. AGRG 0000311 V topermit lower doses of MB and register lowerformulations of MB, especially 50:50. This isconsidered important as flower growing regions stillusing MB in the world use much lower rates of MB.cultivation requires high capitalcosts. CUN states that withranunculus the net revenue forsolarization is higher than forMB, while for lilies of the valleymetham sodium has lower netrevenue than MBSeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report39Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsFrance Eggplant 125(eggplantpepper andtomato)22.000 none 33,25includingtomato0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this CUN. The CUN isfor soilborne pathogens affecting eggplants particularlyVerticillium dahliae, for which different alternativesare technically and economically feasible: Steam iswidely used to controlV.dahliaeand other pathogensin some European countries and can even be used inthe 17 ha heavily infested soilsthat make part of thisnomination. Very good root stocks resistant toV.dahliaeare now available (KNVFFr) and eggplantgrafting is widely used in many countries with similarclimate and cropping systems (Spotti, 2004).Registration of chloropicrin is expected for 2006 andsoon thereafter of mixtures of this material with otherchemicals, such as 1,3D+Pic. These alternatives,combined with grafting will provide excellent controloptions for the nominated areas (Loumakis, 2004;Spotti, 2004; Tognoniet al,2004; Kah, 2005). 3% (15ha) of the eggplant area isnow in soil less culture andthis technique can be expanded at least partially in thenominated area (Spotti, 2004; Tognoniet al, 2004;Leoniet al,2004).CUN argues that the cost ofsteam treatment is too high.CUN states that although thecost of chemical alternatives islower, yield losses result inlower (20 to 35%) net revenue.The loss in net revenue forsoilless cultivation(greenhouses) is even higher.CUN also argues that the currentcost of investment in relation tothe average product price makesit economically infeasible toincrease the soilless surface area.France Forestnurseries10.000 10.000 none 1.500 1.500 MBTOC recommends 1.5 tonnes for this use in 2007.MBTOC recognizes that propagative material requiresa very high level of soilborne pest and pathogencontrol in order to avoid widespread distribution ofpests and pathogens. Registration of chloropicrin isexpected for 2006 and soon thereafter of mixtures ofthis material with other chemicals, such as 1,3D+Picbut these are not yet available. Substrates areconsidered uneconomical at 2.5 times the cost oftraditional production in soil but no economic analysishas been provided. Dazomet is not sufficientlyeffective to provide a plant quality comparable tomethyl bromide (using methyl bromide, return can beenhanced 50% relative to MITC treated plants due tosize, shape, and diameter of trees).CUN argues that the cost ofsteam treatment is too high, as isthe cost of hand weeding andcontainer cultivation. CUNconcludes that alternatives areuneconomic as a result of lowernet revenue, and that the needfor MBr disinfection will growin the next 2-5 years with theexpected rapid development ofmicorrhized Douglas pine andoak production.France Orchard &raspberrynurseries5.000 5.000 none 2.000 2.000 MBTOC recommends 2 tonnes for this CUN for 2007.The CUN states that MB isused only in 4% of theproduction area where populations of nematode andsoil fungi, especially Phytophthora, are high. The CUNis for the same quantity licensed for 2006. MBTOCrecognises that propagative material requires a veryhigh level of soilborne pestand pathogen control inorder to avoid widespreaddistribution of pests andCUN states that alternativesresult in a decline of 20-40% innet revenue for apples andraspberries respectively butsanitary quality is notguaranteed.40September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicspathogens into the fruiting fields. Registration ofchloropicrin is expected in 2006 but this alternative isnot yet commercially available. Dazomet is aneffective alternative for areas where fungal populationsare low to moderate, but is significantly less effectivewhen disease pressure ishigh, particularly whenPhythophthora is present. 1,3 D is being used ininstances when nematodes are the key pest. The Partyprovides results of new studies with dazomet, 1,3 Dand combinations of these two chemicals . MBTOCfurther encourages the Party to provide more detailedinformation, if nominations are made in future, onpathogen levels on plants (pathogen tolerance) forthose pathogens subject to certification requirements aswell as comparative measures of plant vigour. The rateof methyl bromide allowed by regulation is 50 g/m2.MBTOC notes that efforts are being made by that theParty to amend the regulation no. AGRG 0000311 V topermit lower doses of MB and register lowerformulations of MB, especially 50:50.France Orchardreplant25.000 25.000 7.500 7.000 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 7.0 tonnesfor this CUN for 2007. TheCUN is for controlling theorchard replant complex. MBTOC recognises thatthere may be regulatory restrictions on the minimumdosage allowed in France, but bases itsrecommendation on the use of 35g/m2 on bedtreatment which constitutes 50% of the treated area.This dosage conforms to MBTOC's standardpresumption of 350 k/ha of 98:2. Although a number ofpossible alternatives exist for controlling replantproblems, these are based on combinations ofchloropicrin with other chemicals and this material isnot yet registered in France. MBTOC notes that a largearea (80%) is not treated with MB; 18% of such area ispresently subjected to crop rotation, treated withDazomet or otherwise subjected to agronomic practicesthat help reduce pathogen incidence. The mainconstraint to the adoption ofalternatives is the inabilityto clearly identify the causalagents of replant disease.The Party is encouragedto extend the use of soiltesting to confirm the necessity for MB fumigation.CUN states that alternativesresult in a decline of 10-20% innet revenue.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report41Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsFrance Pepper (seeeggplant)27.500 none 6.000 6.000 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 6.0 tonnes for this usein 2007. The CUN is for control ofPhytophthoracapsici.Chloropicrin, a suitable alternative, isexpected to become registered in 2006 but is not yetavailable. Although MBTOC's standard presumptionsinclude a dosage rate of 35 g/m2 of MB 98:2,registered doses are higher in France, where 60 g/m2are required forP. capsici, 50 g/m2 for other soilbornepests and 40 g/m2 for nematodes. Presently, differentalternatives are technicallyand economically feasiblefor this use: Steam iswidely used to controlP.capsiciand other pathogens in some European countries(Barel, 2004) and its use could be expanded in the 25ha of heavily infested soils reported in the CUN.Grafting is also an alternative although MBTOCrecognises that its use in peppers is not yet widespread.Registration of chloropicrin should provide furtheroptions of control, when used alone or in combinationwith other chemicals or with grafting Spotti, 2004). 3%(15 ha) of the pepper area is now in soil less cultureand this technique can be expanded at least partially inthe nominated area. MBTOC notes that efforts arebeing made by that the Party to amend the regulationno. AGRG 0000311 V to permit lower doses of MBand register lower formulations of MB, especially50:50.CUN argues that the cost ofsteam treatment is too high.CUN concludes that cultivationwith existing chemicalalternatives will cause a decreaseof the revenue of 15 to 30%.Soil-less culture gives higher netrevenue, but given the highcapital investment required, thetotal area in soil-less culture isonly 20 ha in France. Moreover,these data do not take intoaccount the drastic increase ofsteel and energy prices thatmakes soilless culture much lessattractive.France Strawberryfruit -protectedand openfield90.000 86.000 none 34.000 0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this nomination. Thenomination requests MB mainly for soil-grownstrawberries that carry “terroir” labels, such asPerigord. The party states that substrates have beenadopted on more than 300 ha but cannot be used for“terroir” areas because the standards require productionin soil. MBTOC requested more details about thestandards but did not receive this information.MBTOC considers that several alternatives areavailable in France and that they provide yields similarto MB, for example metam applied by rotating-spadingequipment, combinations of 1,3-D, metam, dazomet,LPBF and resistant varieties (Fritsch and Rabasse,2000; Pommier, 1999; Haglund, 1999; Sydorovych,2004: Ferguson, 2001; Lopez-Aranda 2003; Porter2004; Runia and Molendijk 2006; Rabasse, 2003;studies in Special Report: TEAP May 2006). MSapplied by drip irrigationwas registered in 2005 andCUN states that a net revenue of12 000 euros (farmers earn netrevenue of around 20 000 eurosper hectare on 1.5 ha farms) isequivalent to the guaranteedminimum wage. Net revenueslower than this means there is anadvantage to being unemployed.Given that the cultivation ofstrawberries without fumigationand with existing chemicalalternatives decreases netrevenues by some 50%, this willcause serious social disruption inpoorer regions. While netrevenues for soilless culture areonly 8% lower, the investment isnot acceptable for older farmers,42September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsadopted on about 100 ha that year. where more than 40% of thefarmers are older than 50.However, CUN states thatmetam sodium has a lower cost,hence even if it results in acommercial yield that is 36%lower, it will be possible to useafter registration.France Strawberryrunners40.000 40.000 28.000 28.000 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 28 tonnes. The Partystates that MB is required to meet the certificationstandards for strawberry runners. Metham sodium isused in areas of low disease pressure and MB/Pic(98:2) is used on the remaining 80% of land everysecond year - ie 60 ha. MBTOC acknowledges that theParty has a reduced range of alternatives availablebecause chloropicrin is notregistered. The Party’sresearch and testing program indicates severalpotentially feasible alternatives are being considered,ie. 1,3-D + PIC combination [awaiting the registrationof PIC], DMDS [registration not likely before 2009]and methyl iodide [awaiting outcome in the US].MBTOC notes that efforts are being made by that theParty to amend the regulation no. AGRG 0000311 V topermit lower doses of MB and register lowerformulations of MB, especially 50:50. This isconsidered important as other strawberry runnergrowing regions in the world use much lower rates ofMB. The Party is requested in future nominations todemonstrate that alternatives do not achieve thepathogen and pest tolerance levels to meet certificationrequirements.CUN argues (based on trials)that although costs ofalternatives such as metamsodium are lower than MBr,alternatives could result innegative net revenue. Inaddition, certification is notguaranteed.France Tomatoes 48.400 included ineggplantabove0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this CUN. MB is nolonger used for tomatoes in most European countries(Besri, 2004; Garcia-Alvarezet al, 2004; Tello, 2002).According to the CUN, soildisinfestation with MB isthe option for controlling corky root, particularly inview of the fact that chloropicrin is not yet registered.Although MBTOC's standard presumptions include adosage rate of 35 g/m2 of MB 98:2, registered dosesare higher in France, where 60 g/m2 are required forP.capsici, 50 g/m2 for other soilborne pests, 50 g/m2 and40 g/m2 for nematodes. Presently, different alternativesare technically and economically feasible for this use:Steam is widely used to controlP.capsiciand otherCUN argues that the cost ofsteam treatment is too high,while high grafting increases thecost of the plant. CUN states thata net revenue of 12 000 euros(farmers earn net revenue ofaround 20 000 euros per hectareon 1.5 ha farms) is equivalent tothe guaranteed minimum wage.Net revenues lower than thismeans there is an advantage tobeing unemployed. Given thatthe cultivation of tomatoesSeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report43Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicspathogens in some European countries (Barel, 2004)and its use could be expanded in the 50 ha of heavilyinfested soils reported in the CUN. Grafting is alreadywidely used in France (30 % of the tomatoes grown aregrafted, De Miguel, 2004;Besri, 2003; Spotti, 2004),even though resistance to corky root is not alwaysrobust, and registration of chloropicrin and Picmixtures in combination with grafting will furtherexpand the scope of efficient alternatives available.Forty per cent of fresh tomatoes (1200 Ha) arepresently produced in soil less culture and thisalternative may be further expanded (Besri, 2003;Spotti, 2004; Tognoniet al,2004; Leoniet al, 2004).without fumigation and withexisting chemical alternativesdecreases net revenues by some30 to 50%, this will causeserious social disruption. Whilenet revenues for soilless cultureare only 8% lower, theinvestment costs are high.Greece Dried Fruit 4.280 3.081 none 0.900 0.45 MBTOC recommends 0.450 tonnes for this use in2007. This is a 50% reduction over the amountnominated by the Party. The Party has achieved aconsistent downward trend in methyl bromide use fordried fruit. In March 2006 and in its interim CUNreport, MBTOC requested information from the Partyto enable detailed review ofthe CUN, but as of its finalmeeting of 2006, no information was received. Inprevious years for CUNs for dried fruit for Greece andfor dried fruit in other countries, MBTOC hasrecognized a need for a relatively small amount ofmethyl bromide when rapid fumigation beforemarketing is urgent. Lacking the requested informationfrom the Party on volume of product needing rapidfumigation, MBTOC was only able to justify 0.450tonnes.No economic data givenGreece Mills &Processors23.000 15.445 none 1.340 1.340 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1.34 tonnes for thisuse for 2007. The Party's MB use for this applicationhas shown a steep decline since 2005. The applicantdoes not give details of the alternatives currentlyproposed for use. MBTOC advises the Party that thestandard dosage rate for mill treatment is 20 g/m3.MBTOC would wish to encourage the consideration ofheat disinfestation and IPM as a means to further thereplacement of MB. (Dosland et al, 2006). Given therelatively low amount of MB requested by the Party, inthe face of the 20 mills that will require pest control,the Party might need to consider allocation strategiesthat reserve MB for those mills whose size, layout anddesign, age and/or location make transition mostdifficult.CUN states that carbon dioxidecannot be used because of costs,while both boiling and coldtreatment require the installationof boilers along with peripheralsin every fumigation facility.44September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsIreland Mills none 0.888 none0.611 0.000 MBTOC did not assess this nomination as it waswithdrawn at the request of the Party.CUN notes sulfuryl fluoride willbe at least 2.5 times the cost ofmethyl bromide, while noaccurate cost of heat treatment isavailable. There are also lossesfrom additional downtime whenalternatives are used.Israel Dates 3.444 2.755 none 2.200 2.200 MBTOC recommends 2.2 tonnes for 2007 for this use.The Party has continued its 20% decrease for 2 years.The Party has recently made excellent advancements inresearch and commercial adaptation of heat treatmentunder difficult circumstances in remote packinghouses. The remaining MB is needed to allow time totransition the most difficult regions with techniquesdeveloped in Israel.CUN recognises a newtechnology using heat todisinfest and control date pests.CUN says that although a costbenefit analysis has yet to bemade, the initial capital expenseswere reasonable takingadvantage of existing dryingfacilities and a dryer adapted forheat disinfestation treatment.Furthermore, energy costs areincorporated within the existingcosts of drying. Although thetechnology still could benefitfrom further fine-tuning, thefinal results are satisfactory.Israel Flour mills 2.1401.490 none 1.490 1.040 MBTOC recommends 1.04 tonnes of methyl bromidefor mills in 2007. This represents a 30 % decrease ofthe originally nominated amount, as revised by theParty. Millers are startingor improving existing pestmanagement programs within the concept of"Integrated Pest Management" (IPM). The applicantindicates the use of heat disinfestation will bedeveloped according to the usual standards. Millers areplanning a step-wise phase-out of methyl bromidewhich will be completed in 2008.CUN provides no economicanalysis.Israel Furniture 1.442 0.000 none 1.442 0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this use. The CUN doesnot justify the use of MB for wood when numerousalternatives such as CO2, N2 and vacuum treatmentscan be used for this purpose . The applicant hasprovided no research data on effectiveness oreconomics of alternatives and supplied no informationto show that alternatives are not registered.CUN provides no economicanalysis.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report45Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsIsrael Museums none none none 0.600 0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this use. Alternativessuch as CO2, N2, vacuum, cold are all technicallyeffective for moveable artefacts. (Navarro, 2006). TheParty may wish to resubmit this nomination with clearindication proposing only immovable objects, itemscontaminated with fungior entire libraries withinfested books, or if the Party has a clear justificationthat shows why technicallyeffective alternatives arenot suitable in their circumstances. In which case, theParty may provide information that the CUN fullymeets the requirements of Decision IX/6 and providethe volume of product to be treated, the dosage rate andthe conditions of treatment.CUN provides no economicanalysis.Israel Broomrape none none none 250.000 250.000 MBTOC recommends 250 tonnes of MB for this usefor 2007. The CUN is for broomrape eradication andland rehabilitation of 1000 hain the Upper Galilee andthe Golan Heights. A total of 5700 ha is highly infestedwith this weed, making it impossible to producetomatoes in these regions. The recommended CUN isbased on a dosage of 250 kg/ha of 98:2 MB with use/emission reduction technologies. Chloropicrin or MBformulations with higher proportion of Pic are notregistered in Israel. MB will be used only once in eachregion and it is expected to bring the weed parasitepopulation below the damage threshold allowing forother alternatives to be adopted. In addition, the Partyexpects that in 2007-2008, some alternatives andcombinations such as 1,3-D/Pic, sequential applicationof 1,3-D+ metham sodium and resistant varieties willbecome registered or available. The Party has alsoidentified other alternativesto control low infestationsof Orobanche (e.g. Sulfosulfuron, solarization).CUN states that broomrapeinfestation is aggravated by thephase out of MB, as registeredalternatives do not prevent areawide infestation with theparasitic weed. The same is truefor agrotechnical means, longterm fallow cropping andbiological control which inpractice and in economic termsdo not cope with the long-termvitality of broomrape seeds andtheir gradual germinationmechanism. CUN also states thatprospects for the registration ofImazapicare low and themanufacturer, having doubtsabout the cost-effectiveness ofits registration, might refrainfrom its further development.Further, soil solarization, usuallyapplied on intensive vegetablecrops, is too expensive anddelicate for extensive outdoorcrops.46September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsIsrael Cucumber none none none 25.000 25.000 MBTOC recommends 25.0 tonnes of MB for this CUNfor 2007. The CUN states that cucumbers are grown inopen ended polyhouses in 3 cropping cycles per annumin the proximity of the residential houses ofcooperative family and private family farms. 70% ofthe need for MB is concentrated in one village, wherethe growers specialized foryears in the cultivation ofindoor cucumbers for the domestic market. The needfor MB could be considered as a niche request and wasnot submitted previously since most of the crop’spathogen control problems were resolved satisfactorilyat the commercial level. For two out of the threecropping cycles, solutions were found despite themonoculture production pattern which reflects thespecialization of the growers but narrow rotationsenhances the pressure from soil-borne pathogens. Thetwo additional reasons for the submission of therequest for MB are the appearance ofF. oxysporum f.sp. radicis cucumerinumfor which MB is therecommended control means and there are buffer zonelimitations on the use of the MS+1,3-D mixtures. Thepathogen is highly virulentand the infestation levelparticularly high in the affected location and it coulddevastate entire greenhouses in a short period of time.Furthermore, low soil temperatures prevailing in thefumigation season of December-January constraint theadoption of MB alternatives. The nominated amount isbased on a dosage of 250 kg/ha of 98:2 MB inconjunction with use/ emission reduction technologies.Chloropicrin or MB formulations with a higherproportion of Pic are not registered. The Party statesthat trials on alternatives are proceeding.CUN states that the costs ofgrafted seedlings are a limitingfactor because the technology incucumbers is in its infancy.Furthermore, the CUN statesthat Basamid is noteconomically feasible due to itshigh prices and its low efficacyin the winter when prevailingsoil temperatures are too low forits safe use.Israel cutflowers- bulbs -protected303.000 240.000 none 321.330 220.185 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 220.185tonnes for this use in 2007. MBTOC does notrecommend use of 5 t of MB for fumigating substrates.MBTOC has adjusted the amount for Ghaza toconform to the standard presumptions for dosage rateof 35 g/m2 of 98:2 with adoption of LPBF. MBTOChas also adjusted the nominated amount to account for25% adoption of alternatives in 2007. The requestedamount of MB is higher than the 2005 nomination dueto new flower types being grown and needingfumigated soils. Lack of registration of key alternativesand chloropicrin mixtures for many flower types is theCUN provides partial budgetsfor MB and the next bestalternatives. The net revenue forthe next best alternatives isnegative in all cases. CUN alsostates that soil steaming is notcost effective at a cost of$0.88/m2, and solarisation is notcost effective taking into accountthe time spent on mulching: 6-8weeks, the cost of the plastic,fencing, irrigation system andSeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report47Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsmajor factor affecting substitution of MB at this time. water for soil wetting.Israel Cutflowers- open field77.000 67.000 none 80.755 74.540 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 74.54tonnes of MB for this use in 2007. The nominationrequest is higher than that of the previous year due toexpansion of the cropping area grown with flowers,particularly proteas (300+ new Ha) and somegeophytes (30 new Ha). Lack of registration of keyalternatives on flowers, which are available for othercrops in Israel, such as 1,3-D+Pic, dazomet andmetham sodium, are the major constraints affectingsubstitution of MB at this time. MB formulations withhigher chloropicrin content are also not registered.Solarisation and metham sodium (registered at thistime only in gladioli) and soil-less substrates have beenidentified by the Party as feasible alternatives for aproportion of this nomination (71 Ha out of 400 Ha)and a 25% transition rate has been applied to thisproportion for adoption of these alternatives in 2007.MBTOC encourages the Partyto continue efforts toregister alternatives, particularly mixtures withchloropicrin, and promote their further adoption.CUN provides partial budgetsfor MB and the next bestalternatives. The net revenue fortreatment with Basamid is higherthan with MB, but this product isnot registered. The use ofmetham sodium on solidagoresults in a 60% decline in netrevenue, while alternatives forlizianthus result in negative netrevenue.Israel Fruit treenurseries50.000 45.000 none 10.000 7.500 MBTOC recommends 7.5 t for this use in 2007.MBTOC recognizes that propagative material requiresa very high level of soilborne pest and pathogencontrol in order to avoid widespread distribution ofpests and pathogens into the fruiting fields. The Partyadjusted their requested amount using a 25g/m2 rate of98:2 which is below the MBTOC standard. The Partyadjusted their nomination to omit the amount originallynominated for treatment of substrates. The Party willreach approximately 65% adoption of pottedproduction of tree seedlings by 2007.CUN states that economicassessment is not feasible in thiscase since the effect of MB or itsalternatives impacts the qualityof the produced seedlings. Thequantitative aspect is notrecorded and is not significanteconomically. The quality of theseedlings is the raison d’etre ofthe whole industry and a zerotolerance level is imposed on itfor bacterial galls and symptomsof nematodes.Israel Melon -protectedand field125.650 99.400 none 140.000 99.500 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 99.5 tonnesfor a CUN for this use in 2007.Monosporascuscannonballusis the key pathogen affecting winterproduction of melons in the Arava Valley.Fusariumoxysporum f.sp. melonisand root-knot nematodes,mainlyM. javanica are also affecting crops.MBTOCnotes that MB has been fullyreplaced with alternativesfor fall production of melons in the same region: 1,3-D,metham sodium, dazomet, solarisation,formaldehyde+MS, and 1,3-D+Pic in the southernCUN provides partial budgetsfor the next best alternatives.The net revenue for the next bestalternatives is negative.48September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsArava. The long plant back time of these fumigantsduring the winter and the lack of appropriate climaticconditions for solarisation make these optionsunfeasible in the winter. The nominated quantity hasbeen calculated based ona dosage of 25 g/m2 inconjunction with use/ emission reduction technologies.In the absence of alternatives proving ineffective, theParty, if possible, is urged to consider registration ofMB formulations with a higher content of chloropicrin,(eg. 50:50, 30:70) to allow further reduction of MB inthe future.Israel Potato 239.000 165.000 none 137.500 137.500 MBTOC recommends 137.5 tonnes of MB for this usefor 2007. There are 15,000 Ha of potatoes grown inIsrael and alternatives to MB have been implementedfor management of key pests and pathogensfor allregions. The applicant identified that such alternativesdo not work in 550 ha in highly populated areas wherewinter production occurs, infestations are high andregulatory constraints are in place for feasiblealternatives such as 1,3D+ Pic (61:35). This product isprohibited near residential areas in 15% of the potatoacreage in this region. The CUN further indicates thatmechanical injection machines are being developed forthe application of metham sodium and formaldehyde,which will help decrease the environmentalcontamination caused by these two chemicals makingthem toxicologically acceptable for the specificconditions of the densely populated Sharon region. It isanticpated these alternatives will be implemented soon.In the absence of completeuptake of these alternatives,the Party, if possible, is urged to seek registration ofMB formulations with higher content of chloropicrin inorder to further reduce MB use.CUN shows that the net revenueusing MB is negative, while forthe next best alternative it ispositive. CUN states that theregistered alternatives carryenvironmental and economiccosts. CUN also states thatpotatoes cannot be cultivatedunder soil-less culture or withplug plants, as once planted ininfested soils would lose theiradvantage and end up with higheconomic losses. CUN statesthat Telopic is more costeffective in the Sharon than inthe Negev; that Telon II-94%,Cadusafos and Fenamiphos iscost effective, and thatBionem/Bio-safe is used only inorganic farming and is not costeffective for mainstreamproduction.Israel Strawberryrunners35.000 35.000 none 28.000 28.000 MBTOC recommends 28 tonnes for strawberry runnersin 2007 [80 ha x 350 kg/ha]. The CUN states that 1,3-D + Pic has been the leading alternative, but thatfurther adoption is limited by the required 250 m bufferwhich significantly limits its use in the 2 primarystrawberry growing regions – Sharon and the GhazaStrip. The CUN states that the introduction ofMacrophomina phaseolina in 2004 threatensstrawberry runner growing areas. MBTOC has used itsstandard presumption for 98:2 formulation of 35 g/m2with LPBF (eg.VIF). In order to comply with DecisionCUN shows that the net revenueusing MB is lower than for thealternatives. CUN states that theregistered alternatives carryenvironmental and economiccosts. CUN also states thatsoilless cultures are a possibility,but not before 2010 due to thehigh costs of the technology.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report49Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsIX/6, the Party is requested to demonstrate results fromtrials, and to demonstrate that alternatives do notachieve the pathogen and pest tolerance levels to meetcertification requirements if future nominations aresubmitted..Israel Strawberryfruit196.000 196.000 none 148.200 65.100 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 65.1 tonnesfor this use in 2007. The CUN states that 1,3-D/Pic iseffective and used on part of the crop but furtheradoption is limited by buffer zones in two strawberryproduction regions. The party has not quantified theimpact of buffer zones. MBTOC considers thatalternatives such as dazomet + barrier film anddazomet + short solarisation are available and effectivefor the major pests affecting strawberry fruit in Israeland provide yields about 92- 108% of yields obtainedwith MB (Ausher, 2004; Lopez-Aranda 2001, 2003,2004; Pietr, 2002; IR-4 2000; Yücel, 2002; TEAP2006b). The CUN’s economic assessment indicatedthat dazomet and 1,3-D/pic provided net revenues 70%and 53% higher than MB at 2005 prices. Soillesssystems are used, but the party states that furtheruptake is limited by cost. MBTOC encouages theapplicants to continue adopting low-cost substratesystems which have been adopted by family farms insimilar circumstances in other regions (Sonneveld,2004; Lieten, 2004), as well as other alternativesidentified above. MBTOC considers that the transitionwill also be assisted by reducing infection in nurseryrunner production, improved cultural practices toreduce pathogen pressure, and greater use of availableresistant varieties. MBTOC considers that this sectorcould achieve full adoptionof alternatives in thecoming year.Party provided an enterprisebudget comparing strawberryfruit production in soillesssystem compared to in soilproduction and concludes thatdespite higher yields insubstrates, higher productioncosts prevent expansion ofsoilless production.Israel tomato none none none 90.000 22.750 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 22.750tonnes for this use in 2007. The reduction is based onadjusting the application rate to conform to MBTOC'sstandard presumptions of 35g of MB/m2incombination with use/ emission reduction technologies.The nomination is for the eradication of the newlyintroduced soilborne fungusVerticillum dahliae, race2. The CUN states that this request is only for one yearand no further requests are expected in the future.CUN provides no economicanalysis.50September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsItaly Artifacts 5.225 5.225 none 5.000 5.000 MBTOC recommends 5 tonnes in 2007 for control ofpests and fungi in historical buildings and immovablebuilding components, but only under the currentprocedures whereby MB treatment is used followingthe recommendation by government conservationofficials. Other EU member states use SF for some ofthese purposes, but SF is not registered in Italy for useon historical buildings and artefacts. Pests of historicalbuildings are both insects and fungi, but MBTOC doesnot know of a technically effective alternativetreatment for control of fungi in historical buildingsand components. Italy is encouraged to continue itsresearch program to testthe suitability of modifiedatmospheres and approve alternative treatments such assulfuryl fluoride which would control insect pests.Additionally, treatment of wood boring insects inbuilding components could be achieved by tarped spotfumigation with carbon dioxide or nitrogen, a methodwhich still allows use ofthe building (Unger et al,1992) .No economic data givenItaly Mills andprocessors160.000 65.000 none 25.000 25.000 MBTOC recommends 25 tonnes for this use in 2007.The recommended amount corresponds to more than50% reduction compared to 2006 MB use. Italyregistered SF in 2004, but relatively few fumigatorshave been fully trained to date. Italy is also working toadapt heat treatments to mills but few heat treatmentshave been conducted. Italy believes it will completethis transition and methyl bromide will be phased outin 2008.CUN notes that the cost oftreatment with sulfuryl fluorideis higher.Italy Cutflowers,bulbs -protected250.000 187.000 none 30.000 30.000 MBTOC recommends 30 tonnes of MB for this CUNas requested. The Party has rapidly and significantlyreduced the requested amounts over the last three years(from 250t in 2005, to 187 t in 2006), and istransitioning to alternatives. MBTOC also recognisesefforts made by the Party in reducing dosages of MB toconform to MBTOC standard presumptions includinguse/ emission reduction technologies and in obtainingregistration of key alternatives such as chloropicrin.The CUN states that substrates are not feasible becausewater supply is insufficient and open substrate systemscause unacceptable contamination of soils. However, inmany parts of the world simple and relativelyinexpensive systems are in place, by which water canbe re-circulated and cleaned, thus avoiding these twoCUN argues that farms are toosmall for rotation to beeconomically viable. CUNprovides some data on the costof alternatives, all of which arelower cost thanMB, except forsteam and soilless production.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report51Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsproblems (Savvas and Passan, 2002; Savvas, 2003;Pizano, 2005). The Party is encouraged to furtherevaluate the acceptability of such systems.Italy Eggplant -protected194.000 156.000 none 15.000 0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this CUN for 2007.MBTOC recognises the effort made by the Party inreducing the nomination from 96 T in 2005 to 15 Trequested for 2007 however effective alternatives exist.The CUN states that eggplant production is mostlyconcentrated in SouthernItaly where local soil andclimatic conditions make simultaneous infestations offungi, weeds and nematodes very common. Key fungalpathogens areVerticillium wilt, Fusariumspp.,Sclerotium rolfsii, Rhizoctonia solani, Phytophthoraspp,for which different alternatives are economicallyand technically feasible. Chloropicrin is registered inItaly and sequential application with 1,3-D is nowpossible and effective (Loumakis, 2004). Grafting onresistant root stock is nowa well validated and adoptedtechnology and many nurseries in Italy now producegrafted eggplant plants(Spotti, 2004; Kah, 2005).Substrates are also widely used and prove technicallyand economically feasible inmany regions with similarclimates and also in the nominated area (Spotti, 2004;Tognoniet al, 2004; Leoniet al, 2004).CUN provides some data on thecost of alternatives, most ofwhich are lower than MB, butproduce lower yields. CUN alsomentions the high cost of steam,soilless production and graftedplants.Italy Melon -protected131.000 131.000 none 10.000 10.000 MBTOC recommends 10 tonnes of MB for this use in2007. The key pests areFusarium solani, Fusariumoxysporum f.sp. melonis, Monosporascuscannonballus, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Meloidogynespp. andVerticilliumspp. Use of sequentialapplication of 1,3 D and Pic has allowed significantreduction from previous CUN applications of 112 t to38 t and further to the current amount of 10 t. Therapid transition of a large proportion of growers toalternatives is recognised,and it is anticipated thatthere will not be a future nomination from this Partyfor this crop.CUN provides some data on thecost of alternatives, most ofwhich are lower than MB, butproduce lower yields. CUN alsomentions the high cost of steam,soilless production and graftedplants.Italy Pepper -protected160.000 130.000 none 67.000 67.000 MBTOC recommends an amount of 67 tonnes of MBfor this CUN. The CUN states the nomination isrestricted to areas where alternatives are not availablebecause of economic and technical reasons.Alternatives however, are considered to exist(Loumakis, 2004; Tognoni,et al,2004; Spotti, 2004),however further time is required for transition. Pepperproduction is mostly concentrated in Southern ItalyCUN provides some data on thecost of alternatives, most ofwhich are lower than MB, butproduce lower yields. CUN alsomentions the high cost of steam,soilless production and graftedplants.52September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicswhere, due to local soil and climatic conditions, theoccurrence of high level of infestation of fungi andnematodes is very common. Chloropicrin has recentlybeen registered in Italy allowing for sequentialapplications with other products, but mixtures withother chemicals are not yet registered. Grafting is atechnically feasible alternative (Spotti, 2004) but hasonly been recently introducedand further time isneeded to expand its uptake.Other feasible alternativesinclude steaming and soil less culture.Italy Strawberryfruit407.000 320.000 35.000 0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this nomination. Thenomination is based primarily on the short time forwhich newly registered alternatives have beenavailable. MB is applied every 2 or 3 years. However,1,3-D EC and Pic EC were registered in 2001 and 2002respectively and have been adopted on large areas inItaly; 1,3-D traditional formulations and metam wereused from earlier years. Several of the alternatives usedin Italy provide yields that are statistically similar toMB, such as 1,3-D and Pic (sequentially-applied),metam+ pic, metam drip application, and pic + VIF(Spotti, 2004; Ajwa et al., 2002, 2003, 2004; Haar etal.,2001; Nelson et al., 2001a,b; Fritsch and Rabasse,2000). The recent annual adoption rate for fumigantsin strawberry fruit in Italy is 630 – 650 ha/year (EC,2006), while the CUN is for 120 ha. There appear to beno different or specific circumstances that prevent useof the alternativesin the remaining area of MB use.CUN provides some data on thecost of alternatives, most ofwhich are lower than MB, butproduce lower yields. CUN alsomentions the high cost of steamand soilless production.Italy Strawberryrunners120.000 120.000 35.000 35.000 MBTOC recommends an amount of 35 tonnes for thisuse for 2007. The CUN states that MB is required tomeet certification of 100% pathogen-free strawberryrunners and this is not technically feasible with thecurrently registered alternatives. Trials to reduce thedosage of MB:PIC (e.g. 50:50] have been carried out,but only the 98:2 formulation is currently registered.The Party is requested in future nominations todemonstrate that alternatives do not achieve thepathogen and pest tolerance levels to meet certificationrequirements. Also, in the absence of effectivealternatives the Party if possible is urged to considerregistration of lower MB formulations/doses to reduceMB dosage rate.CUN provides some data on thecost of alternatives, all of whichare lower costthan MB, exceptfor steam.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report53Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsItaly Tomatoes -protected871.000 697.000 none 418.000 80.000 MBTOC recommends 80t of MB for this use. This is atransition amount for one year for the particularcircumstances of Southern Italy (tomato yellow leafcurl virus, soils etc). The critical area is approximately6% of the cropping area. For any future CUN, MBTOChopes to receive extensive,detailed research orcommercial trial data evaluating the technicaleffectiveness and economic feasibility of alternativesand why alternatives arenot applicable in thecircumstances of Italy. The Party recognises thatalternatives are available for the control of tomato soilborne pathogens. The remaining area is approximately6% of the total cropping area and the key pests arefungal diseases (Verticillium, Fusarium., SclerotiumSclerotinia, Phytophthora spp). Pic and 1,3 D areregistered as single chemicals. The former a goodalternative for the control of soilborne pathogenic fungiand if nematodes are present, sequential applicationwith 1,3-D is now possible and effective (Minuto 2003;Spotti, 2004; Loumakis, 2004). Very good resistantvarieties and root stocks to some key pathogens arenow available and grafting onresistant root stock isnow a well validated and adopted technology.Presently, many nurseries in Italy produce graftedtomato plants (Besri, 2003, Spotti, 2004; De Miguel,2004a, b). Substrates are also widely used and proventechnically and economicallyfeasible in many regionswith similar climates and even the nominated area(Besri, 2003; Spotti, 2004; Leoni et al, 2004; Tognoniet al, 2004). Combined alternatives e.g. grafting +chemicals, grafting + solarisation and others can alsobe used (Loumakis, 2004; Spotti, 2004, Togoni et al2004).CUN provides some data on thecost of alternatives, most ofwhich are lower than MB, butproduce lower yields. CUN alsomentions the high cost of steam,soilless production and graftedplants.Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 6.300 MBTOCrecommends 6.3 tonnes for this use in 2008.The CUN relates particularly to fresh market chestnuts,which impacts the technical availability of alternativetreatments, compared for chestnuts used for processing.Although the Party has conducted research trials onmany potential alternatives, there are no registeredalternatives that do not harm the quality andmarketability of fresh marketchestnuts. Unlike othernuts which are durable commodities, chestnuts are ahigh moisture, semi-perishable food. In Japan, they areharvested one day, fumigatedon-farm in small lots andCUN provides no economicanalysis.54September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsmoved to marketing channels through short termstorage facilities. The pest of concern and therequirement to kill eggs and larvae due to short storagebefore marketing has impacted the dosage rate andtreatment time for this product. The Party hasconducted satisfactory efficacy tests with iodomethanebut the necessary registration has not yet beencompleted.Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.60051.450 MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 51.450 tonnesof MB for this use in 2008. The nomination has beenreduced from 68.6 tonnes by 25% based on reductionsof rates under barrier films (e.g. 25g/m2 for 98:2 withLPBF) and increased uptakeof alternatives. Theseinclude increased use of substrates as an alternative.The nomination is based on the stated need to control aspecific virus, KGMMV, of cucumbers. This virus istransmitted by mechanical inoculation; grafting andcontact between plants and byseeds, and can survive incrop debris for several years. The problem existsbecause of continuous cropping with cucumbers. Thedisease is managed in all other countries in the worldwithout MB by using techniques such as crop rotation,crop sanitation and pathogen free seeds. MBTOCvisited the production sitesand recognises the uniquefarming system used for cucumbers in Japan which hasbeen in place for many years. However, in manycountries cucumbers production has already shifted tosubstrates in greenhouse conditions and has becomethe most widely used technique for eliminating a widearray of soilborne plant pathogens. Cheap and simplesystems (buckets, bags, etc.)are available for this kindof production and are used in many developingcountries, and by small growers in Italy, Turkey,Hungary, Greece and others(Leoni & Ledda, 2004;Budai, 2002; Savvas andPassam 2002; Akkaya &Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production,when implemented correctly can produce higher yieldsthan MB (MBTOC, 2002; Batchelor 2000, 2002;Savvas and Passam 2002). Large numbers of growerscan be trained to use substrates systems in a shortperiod of time as experienced in many MLF projects(UNEP/TEAP, 2004). A high rate of adoption of thistechnology for cucumbers production is reported invarious countries (EC, 2006). MBTOC views thatThe Party reports that substrateproduction systems are noteconomically feasible.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report55Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsexpanding simple substrates-based systems is feasiblein the specific Japanese circumstances. Differentsubstrates are available and widely used in tomato andstrawberry production in Japan already. MBTOCobserved that such substrates are now being tested inJapan for the crops that are affected by the virusdiseases for which MB iscurrently used. However,even in substrates there isa critical need for a highdegree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen freetransplants. Japanese greenhouse growers are alreadyusing electronic controlledfertilization systems fordelivering nutrients with their irrigation water thatallows for exact delivery of mineral elements requiredby the crops. No references regarding the arguedpossible occurrence of physiological damage wereprovided by the Party, and MBTOC does notacknowledge this could be a problem.Japan Ginger(field)119.400 119.400 109.701 112.10084.075 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 84.075 tfor this use in 2008. The submission was reduced basedon the use of 25 g/m2 dose under LPBF with improvedapplication. Also, it is anticipated that expanded use ofalternatives like dazometwill occur. The growersindicate that they can use this every other year. Thenomination is for control of Pythium spp. (Pythiumultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingiberium) in gingerfields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. SomeMBTOC members made a field visit to Japanese openfield ginger production sites in August 2006 andrecognized the difficulties that growers have inadopting some alternatives. The growers however,indicate that they are using dazomet and it is aneffective alternative toMB and it is also lessexpensive. The limitation with dazomet occurs whenclimatic conditions such as wet and cold weather limitits application. This results in long periods ofphytotoxicity and subsequently, unacceptable plantback times and reduced crop yields. Chloropicrin isregistered in Japan but the Party states that the plantback time for chloropicrin is 40 days which coulddisrupt crop scheduling and result in delays in plantingand lower yields compared to MB treatment. Inaddition, the proximity of residential areas limits theuse of chloropicrin in some areas. The CUN states thatmetalaxyl does not control Pythium efficiently asParty reports that delays inplanting with alternatives resultin significant decline in grossreceipts and net revenues.56September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsresistant strains to this fungicide have been reported.However the party states thatmetalaxyl combined withdazomet is highly effective for managing Pythiumdiseases. This needs to be investigated in more detail.The CUN does not indicate that cultural practices suchas soil drainage, sowing date, organic amendments(Smith et al 1988) or fungicides specific to Oomycetes,such as phosphonates, have been tested. There alsoappears to be scope for further reduction in MBamount by adoption of MB/Pic mixtures in flat areaswhere mechanization can be used. Reduced emissiontechnologies, such as LPBFfilms, are now being usedand should allow for much reduced dosage rates (e.g.25g/m2 for 98:2 with LBPF). This nomination hasbeen submitted several times with no change inproduction and cultural practices to minimize diseasealthough seed sanitation is being improved. Thesubmission was reduced based on the use of 25 g/m2dose under LPBF with improved application and theexpanded of alternatives like dazomet. The growersindicate that they can use this every other year. Metamsodium can be applied under some circumstances(reduced disease pressures, and certain weatherconditions) if drip irrigation is adopted. MBTOCacknowledges that drip systems are being used in othercrops in Japan and indicatesthat this technology couldbe available for ginger production. In additionimplementing drip would help wash away remnants ofdazomet and thereby reduce plant back time. Thereductions are based on lower rates of MB under LBPF(25 g /m2), improved methods of application offumigants and greater use of dazomet.Japan Ginger(protected)22.900 22.900 14.471 14.80011.100 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 11.1 tonnesfor this use in 2008. The reductions are based on lowerrates of MB under LBPF (25 g /m2), improvedmethods of application of fumigants and greater use ofdazomet. The nomination is for control of Pythium spp.(Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingiberium)in protected ginger fieldsusing MB (98:2) appliedfrom small cans. MBTOC members made visits toJapanese open field gingerproduction sites as wellgreenhouse production sites in August 2006 andrecognized the difficulties that growers have inadopting some alternatives. Growers of ginger in openThe Party reports substantialloss of marketable yields withalternatives. Analysis of impactof planting delays in croppingsystems of ginger with pepper orcucumber shows missed marketwindows that lowers income.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report57Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsfields are using dazomet when climatic conditionsallow and this is an effective alternative to MB andalso less expensive. The limitation with dazometoccurs when climatic conditions such as wet and coldweather limit its application. However, under protectedproduction conditions, dazomet should be able to beapplied much more frequently as moisture andtemperature can be controlled. This would make plantback times more reasonable. MBTOC thereforeconsiders that protected ginger can implement the useof dazomet much more quickly. The CUN states thatmetalaxyl does not control Pythium efficiently asresistant strains to this fungicide have been reported.However the Party states thatmetalaxyl combined withdazomet is highly effective for managing Pythiumdiseases. This needs to be investigated in more detail.The CUN does not indicate that cultural practices suchas soil drainage, sowing date, organic amendments(Smith et al 1988) or fungicides specific to Oomycetes,such as phosphonates, have been tested. Reducedemission technologies such as LPBF films are nowbeing used and should allow for much reduced dosagerates (e.g.25g m2 for 98:2 with LPBF). Thisnomination has been submitted several times with nochange in production and cultural practices tominimize disease although seed sanitation is beingimproved. The growers indicate that they can usedazomet every other year. Metam Sodium can beapplied under some circumstances (reduced diseasepressures, and certain weather conditions) if dripirrigation is adopted. Drip systems were being used inpepper production indicating that this technology isavailable in Japan. Inaddition implementing dripwould help activate dazomet and thereby reduce plantback time.Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 136.650 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 136.65tonnes of MB for this in 2008. The nomination isreduced from 162.3 tonnes to conform to reductions inrates under barrier films (25g with LPBF with 98:2),the increased use of substrates as an alternative. Thenomination is based on the stated need to control aparticular virus of melons. This virus is transmitted bymechanical inoculation; grafting and contact betweenplants and by seeds, and can survive in crop debris forThe Party reports that substrateproduction systems are noteconomically feasible.58September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsseveral years. The problem exists because ofcontinuous cropping with melon. The disease ismanaged in all other countries in the world withoutMB by using techniques such as crop rotation, cropsanitation and pathogen free seeds. MBTOC visited theproduction sites and recognises the unique farmingsystem used for melon in Japan which has been inplace for many years. However, in many countriesmelon production has already shifted to substrates ingreenhouse conditions and has become the most widelyused technique for eliminating a wide array ofsoilborne plant pathogens. Cheap and simple systems(buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind ofproduction and are used in many developing countries,and by small growers in Italy, Turkey, Hungary,Greece and others (Leoni& Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002;Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004;Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, whenimplemented correctly can produce higher yields thanMB (MBTOC, 2002; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvasand Passam 2002). Large numbers of growers can betrained to use substrates systems in a short period oftime as experienced in many MLF projects(UNEP/TEAP, 2004). A high rate of adoption of thistechnology for cucumbers production is reported invarious countries (EC, 2006). MBTOC views thatexpanding simple substrates-based systems is feasiblein the specific Japanese circumstances. Differentsubstrates are available and widely used in tomato andstrawberry production in Japan already. MBTOCobserved that such substrates are now being tested inJapan for the crops that are affected by the virusdiseases for which MB iscurrently used. However,even in substrates there isa critical need for a highdegree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen freetransplants. Japanese greenhouse growers are alreadyusing electronic controlledfertilization systems fordelivering nutrients with their irrigation water thatallows for exact delivery of mineral elements requiredby the crops. No references regarding the arguedpossible occurrence of physiological damage wereprovided by the Party, and MBTOC does notacknowledge this could be a problem.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report59Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsJapan Pepper(green &hot)187.200 190.700 156.700 162.300 121.725 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 121.725tonnes of MB for this use in 2008. This represents areduction of 25% from the requested amount 162.3tonnes. The nomination is based on the stated need tocontrol a particular virus of peppers. This virus istransmitted by mechanical inoculation; grafting andcontact between plants and byseeds, and can survive incrop debris for several years. The problem existsbecause of continuous cropping with pepper. Thedisease is managed in all other countries in the worldwithout MB by using techniques such as crop rotation,crop sanitation and pathogen free seeds. MBTOCvisited the production sitesand recognises the uniquefarming system used forpepper in Japan which hasbeen in place for many years. However, in manycountries pepper production has already shifted tosubstrates in greenhouse conditions and has becomethe most widely used technique for eliminating a widearray of soilborne plant pathogens. Cheap and simplesystems (buckets, bags, etc.)are available for this kindof production and are used in many developingcountries, and by small growers in Italy, Turkey,Hungary, Greece and others(Leoni & Ledda, 2004;Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004;Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, whenimplemented correctly can produce higher yields thanMB (MBTOC, 2002; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvasand Passam 2002). Large numbers of growers can betrained to use substrates systems in a short period oftime as experienced in many MLF projects(UNEP/TEAP, 2004). A high rate of adoption of thistechnology for cucumbers production is reported invarious countries (EC, 2006). MBTOC views thatexpanding simple substrates-based systems is feasiblein the specific Japanese circumstances. Differentsubstrates are available and widely used in tomato andstrawberry production in Japan already. MBTOCobserved that such substrates are now being tested inJapan for the crops that are affected by the virusdiseases for which MB iscurrently used. However,even in substrates there isa critical need for a highdegree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen freetransplants. Japanese greenhouse growers are alreadyusing electronic controlledfertilization systems forThe Party reports that substrateproduction systems are noteconomically feasible.60September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsdelivering nutrients with their irrigation water thatallows for exact delivery of mineral elements requiredby the crops. No references regarding the arguedpossible occurrence of physiological damage wereprovided by the Party, and MBTOC does notacknowledge this could bea problem. The nominationis reduced by 25% based on reductions of rates underbarrier films (25g with LPBF with 98:2) and theincreased use of substrates as an alternative.Japan Watermelon129.000 98.900 94.200 43.300 32.475 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 32.475tonnes of MB for this use in 2008. This represents areduction of 25% from the requested amount 43.3tonnes. The nomination is based on the stated need tocontrol a particular virus of watermelons. This virus istransmitted by mechanical inoculation; grafting andcontact between plants and byseeds, and can survive incrop debris for several years. The problem existsbecause of continuous cropping with watermelons. Thedisease is managed in all other countries in the worldwithout MB by using techniques such as crop rotation,crop sanitation and pathogen free seeds. Thenomination is reduced by 25% based on reductions ofrates under barrier films (25g m2 with LPBF with98:2) and the utilization of grated plants.The Party reports that substrateproduction systems are noteconomically feasible.Netherlands StrawberryRunners0.120 0.120 none 0.120 0.120 MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.12 tonnes for 2007for this use. The Party states that time is still requiredto complete trials on several alternatives currently inprogress. MBTOC notes the nominated MBfumigations are carried out in chambers fitted withrecapture systems.CUN provides no economic dataNew Zealand Strawberryfruit42.000 34.000 none 24.780 0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this nomination. Theparty indicates that MB isused because high rainfall insome years leads to a long waiting period for 1,3-D/Pic, which cannot be accommodated in the cropcycle at present. The main pest is Phytophthoracactorum. Pic alone and Pic +LPBF are effective forthis pathogen (Porter et al. 2004, Sydorovych et al.2004; Ferguson et al. 2001; De Cal et al, 2004; TEAPMay 2006b). The current application method used inNew Zealand gives poor depth of penetration offumigants in soil. The Party states that improvedapplication methods wouldenable Pic to be betterdistributed and MBTOC still considers this a possiblealternative. Improved application methods shouldCUN states that VIF orequivalent is not economicallyfeasible due to the cost ofimports, therefore 40 micronpolythene is used as analternative. CUN provides anupdated economic feasibilityreport to support this renomination. This providestypical costs and returns forstrawberry fruit production byNew Zealand growers, andevaluates the potential impactsof Telone C35 on strawberrySeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report61Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicscontinue to be sought forapplication of 1,3;D/Pic.There are at least 2 months between harvest andplanting, providing sufficient time for fumigation.Phosphorous acid treatments were found to bebeneficial in reducing Phytophthora in one of the mainvarieties used in New Zealand (Pajaro) (Horner et al.2005). The transition would also be assisted by use ofmore resistant varieties and further reductions inPhytophthora infestation in the nursery stock.growers. Telone C35 fumigationon soil previously fumigatedwith methyl bromide reducesyield by ten to twelve percent. Infruiting bed trials with TeloneC35 fumigation for a secondyear, yield was reduced by thirtypercent. This results in a 17%reduction in gross profit marginfor the first year and a 53%reduction for subsequent years.New Zealand Strawberryrunners8.000 8.000 none 7.793 6.234 MBTOC recommends 6.234 tonnes for this use in2007. The CUN states that MB is required to meet thecertification standards for strawberry runners. TheParty states that the 25 g/m2 rate is justified due totheir heavy soils. TheParty's request exceedsMBTOC's standard presumption that a rate of 20 g/m2of MB is effective for production of 'high health'strawberry runners using LPBF films and otheremission control technologies (UNEP/TEAP October2005). The Party's claim that LPBF is noteconomically feasible is based on only a comparison offilm costs. MBTOC's assessment is that the increase inLPBF costs is typically offset by the reduction in theamount of MB:PIC required. The Party states that 1,3-D + PIC is the most promising registered alternativebut does not control disease adequately in heavy soilsand does not have acceptable plant back times due tosoil retention and resulting phytotoxicity. The Partystates that the most promising unregistered alternativeis MI. MBTOC recognizes that New Zealand hasregistered a MB:PIC 30:70 mixture to further reduceMB use and emissions.CUN states that VIF orequivalent is not economicallyfeasible due to the cost ofimports, therefore 40 micronpolythene is used as analternative. CUN states furtherthat the use of Telone C35decreases gross revenue of therunner grower.In addition,supply of infected runner plantsto fruit growers has significantdownstream effects on the grossand net revenue of those fruitgrowers.Poland Coffee &CocoaBeansSeeMedicinalHerbs2.160 none 2.000 1.420 MBTOC recommends a revised, reduced CUN of 1.42tonnes of MB specifically for treatment of cocoa andcoffee imports infested with mites in 2007. Mites aredifficult to control with the potential alternative,phosphine, requiring either very high dosages or splitdosing. The latter is unduly time consuming in animport situation. The Party reports that relatively cheapproducts that are purchased, and it appears the miteinfestations are likely to result from excessive humidityof those products. Mites are an indication that fungalcontamination of the product is present. The source ofCUN states that gas formphosphine (which is notregistered, inter alia because ofthe expected small market) is30% more expensive, largely asa result of additional costsassociated with fumigation timeof 12 days; high cost of speedboxes and phosphine generators.These additional costs make thefumigation treatments with62September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsthe mite infestation needs tobe determined to allowplanning of alternative control strategies. The methylbromide requirement could be reduced if lowermoisture content products were imported; potentialfungal and mycotoxin contamination problems wouldalso be alleviated. The dosage rates used for somefumigations, 50-60 g m3, for mite control with coffeeare higher than necessary and MBTOC recommends adosage rate of 30 g/m3in line with EPPO standards forcoffee treatment, with allowance for presence of mites.The CUN recommendation has been revised tostandardise the dosage rate for coffee, but no reductionhas been made for the treatment of cocoa, which isunder recapture and recycling. The use of recapturedmethyl bromide leads to aneffective methyl bromideusage of 8 g m3. The CUN has been recalculated on thebasis of volume figures given in the nomination.phosphine more expensive by 50Euro per ton. CUN states thatirradiation is expensive becauseof the high cost of transportationto the facility.Poland medicinalherbs andmushrooms4.100 3.560 none 1.800 1.800 MBTOC recommends 1.800 tonnes for this use in2007. These products are contaminated with bothinsects and pathogens. The Party has moved towardschamber treatments which allowed the use of lowerdosage rates for a portion of the commodity, resultingin considerable decreasein MB use. The usualtreatments for these commodities against insects,phosphine and CO2,are not effective against pathogens.The Party is encouraged toconsider steam treatmentsand irradiation in use in other EU countries since theyare effective against insects and pathogens. The Partyis actively trying to encourage the registration ofsulfuryl fluoride as part of their transition plan,although its effectiveness against pathogens needsfurther investigation.CUN states that phosphine(which is not registered, interalia because of the expectedsmall market) is more expensive,largely as a result of additionalcosts associated with fumigationtime of 12 days; high cost ofspeed boxes and phosphinegenerators. These additionalcosts make the fumigationtreatments with phosphine moreexpensive. CUN states thatirradiation is expensive becauseof the high cost of transportationto the facility.Poland Strawberryrunners40.000 40.000 none 25.000 24.500 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 24.5 tonnesfor this CUN for 2007. The reduction has been made toaccount for the Party including the entire amount of theformulation in their nomination [400 kg/ha of 98:2]instead of the MB portion only [392 kg/ha]. The CUNstates that MB is needed to meet the certificationstandards for strawberry runners. Potentially effectivealternatives such as 1,3-D + Pic and Pic alone are notcurrently registered, nor are MB formulations withhigher proportions of chloropicrin. While dazomet andMS are registered, their slow decomposition and longplant back time in the early spring precludes expandedCUN provides data on costs andnet revenue of alternatives, andargues that net revenue usingDazomet will range from 50%lower to 10% higher than MBr.CUN mentions that organicamendments and crop rotationscannot be considered as directreplacement for MB because ofhigh production costs of plugplants for export.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report63Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsuse due to production timing using currently availableapplication equipment. Poland is currently acquiringimproved application equipment. By mid-2006rotating-spading injection equipment for MS wasinstalled in Poland under a GEF project (Barel, pers.comm.). The CUN stated that the application of MSusing modern application equipment in 2006 will allowfor larger uptake of alternatives in 2006 and the yearafter.Spain Cutflowers(AndaluciaandCatalonia)73.000 57.000 none 47.840 43.490 MBTOC recommends a reduced CUN of 30.65t forAndalucia and the full amount of 12,84 t for Cataloniafor 2007. The reduction is based on a rate adjustmentconforming to MBTOC's standard presumptions (175g/m2) in combination with use/ emission reductiontechnologies for situation where high infestations ofnutsedge exist. Fusarium wilt of carnations and rootknot nematodes are also reported as key pests in theCUN. Dosage rates for Andalusia have been adjustedto conform to MBTOC standard presumptions.MBTOC recognises the effort made by the Party inreducing the requested amount with respect to the CUEof last year. In future nominations further clarificationis required to substantiate the claim that substrates areeconomically unfeasible for this nominationparticularly for some flower types such as carnationsand bulbs. A key and efficient alternative, 1,3-D+pic(Peguero, 2004, Melero-Varaet al, 2005)has recentlybecome registered for carnations, which make up alarge proportion of this nomination and rapid transitionis considered possible. .CUN states that 1,3-D, Telonepresents economic disadvantagesbecause of the longer waitingperiod and longer applicationperiod and because it iscorrosive (C), while 1,3-D +Chloropicrin leads to a loss ofyield and steam has economicdisadvantages. CUN argues thatsubstrates are not economicallyfeasible because of the cost.CUN states that substratesrequire high investment andincreases the costs of the crop.Adoption needs a gradualprocess of farm modernization,and is expensive. CUN cites datathat show that an investment of270,455 € is necessary on anarea of 5,000 m2, and theenterprise is unprofitable for thefirst five years. CUN also statesthat the transformation cost forthe industry in Catalonia isestimated at more than 108million €.Spain Peppers 200.000 155.000 none 45.000 45.000 MBTOC recommends 45 tonnes for this use in 2007.MBTOC recognises the efforts made by the Party insubstantially reducing the amounts requested for thiscrop going from 150T in 2005 to 45 T in the presentnomination. The CUN states that the nomination isrestricted to where alternatives are not availablebecause of economic and technical reasons. Pepperproduction is mostly concentrated in Murcia andValencia where, due to local soil and climaticCUN provides data on costs andnet revenue of alternatives, andargues that net revenue usingDazomet will range from 50%lower to 10% higher than MBr.CUN mentions that organicamendments and crop rotationscannot be considered as directreplacement for MB because of64September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsconditions, the occurrence of high levels of infestationof fungi and nematodes is very common.Phytophthoracapsici, Meloidogyne incognitaand nutsedge are themain key pests. The recommended amount isconsidered necessary for final transition to alternativesand it is expected that this is the last nomination fromthis Party for this use.Alternatives are presentlyavailable for pepper production in Spain: Chloropicrin,1,3 D, steaming, soil less culture (Barel, 2004; Spotti,2004; Tognoniet al, 2004; Leoniet al, 2004). Graftingis now developing for this crop in Spain just like inother Mediterranean countries (Spotti, 2004).Substrates are used in about 80 ha pepper in Spain andit is expected that this acreage could be expanded in thefuture.high production costs of plugplants for export.Spain Strawberryfruit556.000 499.290 none 80.000 0,0796 forresearchMBTOC recommends 79.6 kg MB requested forresearch but does not recommend the nomination forstrawberry fruit use in 2007. MBTOC recognizes thatthe Parties decided that MB for research should betaken from stocks (Decision XVII/9, 7). The maingrounds of the nomination were uncertainty about theon-going EC review of pesticides and a longer waitingperiod when using alternatives in heavier soils.MBTOC recognizes that several available alternatives,for example, 1,3-D/Pic, Picalone (or with LPBF), aretechnically feasible alternatives as indicated in the datapresented in the nomination and from studies recentlycarried out in Spain (De Cal et al, 2004; Lopez-Arandaet al., 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). Alternatives wereadopted for strawberry fruit in Spain at the averageannual rate of at least 1627 ha/year since 2004according to data in the nomination, and the ECManagement Strategy (2006)indicates adoption of upto 1627 –2000 ha/year. The area nominated for 2007 is800 ha which represents 8% of the historical MB use.The impact of the longer plant back times suggested bythe Party is not substantiated by data in the nomination,nor trials in similar production regions of othercountries for this crop.CUN states that wider adoptionof soil-less cultivation systems isunviable economically andtechnically and adoption wouldbe catastrophic for the sector;the adoption of plug plantswould suppose a greatconvulsion in the systembecause of costs of transport;while the adoption of steam ishampered by the cost ofproviding the necessaryinfrastructure and equipment forits application. CUN also statesthat the cost of 1,3D + Pic islower than MB in the 2ndyear,but higher in the 3rdyear.Finally, CUN states that diversefactors restrain the large-scaleadoption of LPBF, including thecosts of changing frompolyethylene.Spain Strawberryrunners230.000 230.000 none 230.000 230.000 MBTOC recommends 230 tonnes for this use for 2007.The difficult growing conditions of high elevationnurseries in Spain substantially limit the feasibility ofalternatives to control target pests in order to meetcertification standards of strawberry runners. TheCUN provides data on the costsand net revenue of alternativesto MB, but not that of MB itself.CUN states that yields ofalternatives are 14.6 to 17.1%September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report65Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsCUN states that there are no technically feasiblealternatives available at this time. The Party has alsoindicated that a key potentialfuture alternative (methyliodide) has been withdrawnfrom consideration for EUregistration at this time. The nomination is based onuse of rates of 20g/m2 or less or LPBF films whichMBTOC considers are appropriate to meet certificationstandards for this crop.lower. CUN also argues that theadoption of LPBF is constrainedby high costs.UnitedKingdomAircraft none none none 0.165 0.165 MBTOC recommends 0.165 tonnes MB for this use in2007. The CUN requested MB to control rats and micein large aircraft. The two alternatives used inneighbouring countries within the European Union,CO2and HCN, are not registered for aircraft in the UK.CO2, when used to kill rodents, as opposed to insects,is fast and the applicantis encouraged to pursueregistration. However, efficacious fumigations andaerations will require the use of fans and other mixingdevices, similar to that required during methyl bromidefumigations as indicated in the CUN. The Party isasked to submit its cited report on economics of use ofCO2 for aircraft to assist MBTOC’s review. Membersof the TEAP expressed concern that MB would be usedin aircraft where flight safety may be jeopardized ifMB deteriorates materials used in aircraft construction.Parties using MB on aircraft will want to consult withaircraft manufacturers and aviation safety authorities toverify whether such MB use is prudent.CUN argues that the next bestalternative (CO2) is too highbecause of the large andunmanageable quantities as wellas logistic constraints ofapplication and distributionwithin all areas of the aircraftfuselage. In addition, the costs ofdisruption to airline operationsmust be accounted for, as anaircraft unserviceable on theground costs £100-£750 perminute depending on aircrafttype.UnitedKingdomCerealProcessingPlants16.384 8.131 none 3.480 3.480 MBTOC recommends 3.480 tonnes for 2007. Thisamount represents a 57% reduction over the CUE for2006. The CUN includes 5 companies that are part ofthe trade association for wheat, maize and riceprocessing. The Party is asked to clarify its reporting ofmeasurement of gastightness in rice mills. Sulfurylfluoride, the intended alternative was registered forthese cereal food processors in December 2005.Several trials are in progress to adapt the treatmentmethod for cereal processorsand time is needed tocontinue this transition process.CUN states that the immediateeconomic implications in theabsence of MB for fumigationinclude increased productioncosts, increased down time andextra labour costs, with theultimate risk of product andbrand failure and unquantifiableeconomic loss due to lack ofpublic confidence. Onalternatives, CUN states thatHydrogen Cyanide, which wasused before MB would bedifficult and expensive to reregister, and uneconomic for asmall potential market, whilesulfuryl fluoride and heat66September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicstreatment are from 2 to 3 timesas expensive as MB. CUN alsostates that there is noeconomically viable system forthe recapture of MB for use inbuildings in the UK.UnitedKingdomCheese 1.640 1.248 none 1.248 1.248 MBTOC recommends 1.248 tonnes for this use in2007. The applicant has investigated diatomaceousearth which was unsuccessful, and ozone which causedtaint. Work is continuing on UV light. At presentMBTOC knows of no alternative treatment for controlof mites in cheese storeswhen cheese is present.Further avenues of investigation for cheese storesmight include peer-industry information exchange,reviews of pertinent literature, pest control throughtemperature manipulation and improvements in IPMapproach and sanitation that will reduce infestationuntil the cheese can be removed from the store. Sincethere may be a lengthy requirement for the use of MBin cheese stores and since the stores are fairly gastight,the Party may wish to consider the use of recaptureequipment to reduce emissions from this continued use.CUN states there are noeconomically feasiblealternatives based on lack oftechnically feasible alternatives.CUN presents no economic dataor analysis.UnitedKingdomCommodities (Herbs& Spices)0.035 0.037 none 0.030 0 NRMBTOC does not recommend this use. In the instanceof the occasional infestation that occurs with the smallamount of spice and food products included in thisCUN the Party is encouragedto use alternatives, suchas freezing, steam treatments, irradiation or to usemodified atmosphere treatments.CUN states that phosphine orCO2 would cost 5 times andirradiation would cost 7 times asmuch as MB treatment, CUNnotes losses would result fromadditional downtime whenalternatives are used.UnitedKingdomMills(consolidation of 13millCUNs)30.750 10.195 none 4.509none 4.509 MBTOC recommends 4.509 tonnes for flour mills in2007. The Party provided 13flour mill CUNs detailingspecific information for the mills which are included inthis consolidated response. The Party is asked tosubmit its cited document on risk assessment of heattreatment to assist MBTOC’s review. The Party is intransition to sulfuryl fluoride, which has beenregistered for two years. The applicants have investedin extensive lab and field research to optimize theefficacy of sulfuryl fluoride for mills located intemperate and cool climates. As a result, the applicantshave developed new application methods for acombined heat and sulfuryl fluoride treatment, but ithas not yet been completed for all mill configurations.Although a rapid adoption rate has been proposed,CUN states that, in addition tonot being technically feasible,Sulfuryl Fluoride is at least 2.5times the costs of MB. Inaddition, as the structuraltreatment has not yet reachedcommercialisation, the costs ofheat treatment are unknown.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report67Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicssome time is needed to efficiently transition toalternatives. Given the relatively low amount of MBrequested by the Party, in the face of numerous millsthat will require pest control, the Party might need toconsider allocation strategies that reserve MB for thosemills whose size, layout and design, age and/orlocation make transition most difficult. MBTOC’sknowledge of sulfuryl fluoride and heat treatmentsindicate that more time is required to develop effectivestrategies to treat larger, more complex mills inlocations with cooler temperatures because sometimescombination processes are required.UnitedKingdomMills,FoodProcessing(Biscuits)2.525 1.787 none 0.479 0.479 MBTOC recommends 0.479 tonnes for 2007. Thisamount represents approximately a 70% reduction over2006 use levels. The CUN includes one company, amanufacturer of rye bread crackers. Sulfuryl fluoride,the intended alternative, wasregistered for these cerealfood processors in December 2005. Several trials are inprogress to adapt the treatment method for cerealprocessors and time is needed to continue thistransition process.CUN states that, in addition tonot being technically feasible,Sulfuryl Fluoride is at least 2.5times the costs of MB. Inaddition, as the structuraltreatment has not yet reachedcommercialisation, the costs ofheat treatment are unknown.UnitedKingdomStructures(Herbs &Spices)4.728 1.872 none 0.908 0.908 MBTOC recommends 0.908 tonnes for 2007. Thisamount represents a 50% reduction over 2006 CUE.The CUN includes several companies in theassociation of spice processors. Sulfuryl fluoride, theintended alternative, was registered for spiceprocessing facilities in December 2005. The companieshave begun using heat and modified atmospheretreatments and improved IPM tools. Trials are inprogress to adapt sulfuryl fluoride treatment methodsfor spice processors and timeis needed to continue thistransition process.CUN states heat or SF treatmentwould cost 200% more than MBtreatment.UnitedKingdomStructures(Whitworth)1.1 0.880 none 0.257 0.257 MBTOC recommends 0.257 tonnes for 2007. ThisCUN includes the facility ofone company which packsand stores numerous food commodities and rawmaterials. The nearly 70% reduction expected for 2007over the amount granted by the Parties for 2006reflects that this company uses other treatments for pestcontrol and to avoid infestation. It may be possible tocontinue the advancements in the use of IPM tools tocontinue to avoid infestation, eliminating therequirement for MB in the near future.CUN reports no economic dataon alternatives. Party's responseto EC states costs for SF wouldbe up to 5 times the costs ofmethyl bromide.68September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsUnited States Commodities89.166 87.719 78.983 67.699 58.921inc. 0.021forresearchThis CUN includes walnuts, dried fruit, beans anddates. MBTOC recommendsthe 0.021 tonnes plannedto support alternatives research for these commodities.MBTOC recommends 35.110 tonnes for walnuts in2008, a 20% reduction from the nominated amount of43.888 tonnes. MBTOC believes that the industry cantransition at least 20% ofits current methyl bromideuse for walnuts to sulfuryl fluoride by harvest season2008 (September to November). As MBTOC wasconducting its final assessment, CODEX adopted andpublished MRLs for fluoride in tree nuts, andGermany, one of the major importers of California inshell walnuts, approved the SF registration packagewhich included the MRLs for fluoride in walnuts. TheParty, in correspondencethat preceded the CODEXand German announcements, indicated that ifminimum residue levels for fluoride were to bepublished by CODEX and major importers, then thatwould allow for future transition to sulfuryl fluoride.Although there are difficultiessegregating walnuts bycountry to which they will be exported, the industry isalready making efforts to transition. Sulfuryl fluoridefumigations can be conducted in the same time frameas methyl bromide, an important factor since there is apressing need for fast fumigation and rapid turnaroundto reach the holiday marketin Europe. That progressnotwithstanding, the difficulties in segregating walnutsby importing countries andthe challenges associatedwith switching the huge harvest to this relatively newlyregistered alternative will require some time. Currently,the dried fruit sector plans only a 7% reduction in 2008over 2007 use levels, MBTOC recommends 17.410tonnes for dried fruit for 2008. The new MRLs forfluoride may also allow greater transition for driedfruit, although the extent orrate of the transition cannotbe quantified at this time. Given the transition rate forbeans and dates and the likely transition rate forwalnuts, MBTOC finds the planned transition rate fordried fruit to be inexplicably low. The Party couldensure that Decision IX/6 is more fully met byensuring dried fruit sector only uses MB when shortturn around or immediate treatment before holidaymarketing is required and where sulfuryl fluoride cannot be used. Beans and dates sectors have plannedSeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report69Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsreductions greater than 30% in 2008 over 2007 uselevels. Accordingly, MBTOC can recommend 4.371tonnes for beans and 2.009 tonnes for dates. Beansector has investigated using cylinderized phosphinefinding it useful for product in storage but too timeconsuming for the immediate post-harvest treatmentbefore holiday marketing. The Party has indicated thatpart of its domestic regulatory process for methylbromide allocation includes a review of transition rateswhen more is known about potential to adoptalternatives such as sulfuryl fluoride. Given the veryrecent news, the Party may receive industry commentsconcerning adoption rates which will impact itsdomestic methyl bromide allocation amounts. For anyfuture CUN, MBTOC hopes to receive extensive,detailed research or commercial trial data evaluatingthe technical effectivenessand economic feasibility ofalternatives and why alternatives are not applicable inthe circumstances of the US. Specifically, (1) sulfurylfluoride, (2) decreased MB dosage rates either throughlogistics improvements that remove the need forvacuum treatment or reduceddosage rates for vacuumtreatment, (3) improvements in storage and fumigationlogistics to allow greater adoption of phosphine orpropylene oxide, and (4) an improved transition ratefor dried fruit.United States Cocoabeans(NPMAsubset)61.519 55.367 64.082 none 53.256 53.188 MBTOC recommends 53.188 tonnes for this use in2008. The CUN for cocoa beans is included in the USCUN titled NPMA, but MBTOC has disaggregated it.The Party has indicated it could achieve a 17%decrease over the amount granted by the Parties for thisuse in 2007 (resulting in 53.188 tonnes). Currently theParty indicates a need for two fumigations per year ofthe cocoa beans: the first fumigation upon import and asecond fumigation immediately before shipment to thechocolate manufacturers. However, recent approvalsfor sulfuryl fluoride and research indicating SF doesnot cause end product qualityproblems, together withtechnical effectiveness of other registered treatments,leads MBTOC to believe it might soon be possible toreplace the second fumigation before shipment tochocolate manufacturers. For the first fumigation,changed logistics or building alterations that may allowincreased use of phosphine. In-transit treatments with70September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsphosphine conducted at time of export from producingcountries may be useful in reducing the need for thefirst fumigation (Watson et al, 2002). For the secondfumigation, cylinderized phosphine or sulfuryl fluoridetimed for weekend fumigation may prove sufficienteither as a complete disinfestation or as a postembryonic treatment; egg kill should not be arequirement if the chocolate manufacturers quickly usethe cocoa beans shipped tothem. Additionally, if lowproduct temperature (< 20°C) is considered to be adeterrent to sulfuryl fluoride use, is it may bereasonable to expect use of SF or phosphine duringsummer months. In the case of delay of use of cocoabeans at chocolate manufacturers, temperature controlin their storage bins wouldhelp ensure continuing pestfree status. Propylene oxide is also registered for use incocoa beans, although suitable chambers would have tobe installed. Carbon dioxideat high pressure is in usein other countries. IPM improvements such asenhanced cocoa inspection programs and methodscould be investigated to determine if either or both thefirst or second fumigation could be avoided, especiallyduring winter and possibly in other circumstances. Forany future CUN, MBTOC hopes to receive extensive,detailed research or commercial trial data evaluatingthe technical effectivenessand economic feasibility ofalternatives used in other countries and why thesealternatives are not applicable in the circumstances ofthe US. Specifically, (1) phosphine in registeredformulations, (2) sulfuryl fluoride in a variety ofmethods described above,(3) improvements in IPMand inspection, (4) in-transit fumigation both bulk andin container, (5) fumigation in exporting country, (6)temperature manipulations, (7) propylene oxide, (8)carbon dioxide at high pressure, and (9) a combinationof several of these.United States NPMAfoodprocessingstructures(cocoabeansremoved)83.344 69.118 82.771 none 71.690 69.208 MBTOC recommends 69.208 tonnes for foodprocessing facilities includedin this CUN. This CUNoriginally included cocoa beans, but MBTOC hasdisaggregated the CUN andcomments on cocoa beansin another section. The amount recommended wasdetermined based on the Party’s report that it canachieve a 17% transition in 2008 over 2007 levels.However, MBTOC’s recommendation was based on aCUN states that the economicimpacts cannot be assessed sincethe applicant is not the end-user.Economic impacts arise fromthree contributing factors: directpest control costs increasebecause of increased labor timerequired for longer treatmentSeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report71Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomics17% reduction from the amount granted by the Partiesfor 2007 for processed foods (62.153 tonnes) and herband spice facilities (4.059tonnes). MBTOC did notapply the transition rate tocheese stores (2.996 tonnes)because MBTOC knows of noalternative to controlmites in cheese stores whencheese is present. TheCUN reports that the absence of adopted maximumresidue levels (MRL) for fluoride by the EuropeanUnion restricts the wider adoption of sulfuryl fluorideby this Party’s food processing facilities. AlthoughMBTOC recommends 4.059 tonnes for herb and spicefacilities, MBTOC does not find that the use of MB forherb and spice commodityto be consistent withDecision IX/6 since several alternatives are availableand in widespread commercial use. The Party isrequested to ensure herband spice commodity are notincluded in facility fumigations using MB. Cheesestores are only treated with MB upon requirement ofinspectors from United States Department ofAgriculture in response to pest infestation. To ensurethe requirements of Decision IX/6 are met, the Partyshould conduct research to find alternatives and/ormethods to reduce infestation and the requirement touse MB. Further avenues of investigation for cheesestores might include peer-industry informationexchange, reviews of pertinent literature, pest controlthrough temperature manipulation and improvementsin IPM and sanitation that will reduce infestation untilthe cheese can be removed from the store. Since theremay be a lengthy requirement for the use of MB incheese stores and since the stores are fairly gastight,the Party is encouraged to consider the use of recaptureequipment to reduce emissions from this continued use.For any future CUN, MBTOC hopes to receiveextensive, detailed research or commercial trial dataevaluating the technical effectiveness and economicfeasibility of alternatives and why alternatives are notapplicable in the circumstances of the US. Specifically,(1) heat treatments both full site and spot heat, (2)sulfuryl fluoride, (3) improvements in IPM andinspection leading to complete avoidance of MB use ordecreased frequency of fumigation, (4) phosphine orphosphine combination treatments, and (5) acombination of several of these.time and increased number oftreatments; capital expendituresmay be required to adoptphosphine for acceleratedreplacement of plant andequipment due to its corrosivenature; and additionalproduction downtimes for theuse of alternatives areunavoidable.72September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsUnited States Mills andprocessors483.000 461.758 401.889 none 362.952 348.237 MBTOC recommends 348.237 tonnes for this use in2008. This CUN includes quantities requested for thefollowing disaggregated sectors: rice mills, bakeries,pet foods and flour mills. For rice mills, 66.543 tonnesis recommended for 2008. This amount was calculatedbased on the amount of MB granted by the Parties forthis sector in 2007 (64.150 tonnes), plus the amountdetermined by US government to have been removedin their error in 2007 (17 tonnes). This total (81.150tonnes) was then decreased by a transition rate of 18%for the likely adoption to alternatives, as determined byUSG. For flour milling, MBTOC recommends 240.765tonnes MB for 2008. This amount represents a 12.3%reduction over 2007 levels,part of a continueddownward trend in MB use. For bakeries MBTOCrecommends 14.269 tonnes. This amount represents anapproximate 40% decrease over the levels granted bythe Parties in 2007, reflecting both adoption ofalternatives and resolution of a facility design problemhighlighted in the 2007 CUN. For pet foods, MBTOCrecommends 26.660 tonnes which is a 32% decreaseover the 2007 MB amount granted by the Parties.Sulfuryl fluoride was registered in 2005, and adoptionof heat and phosphine treatments increased, whichresulted in a decrease inMB use requested by theParty. In spite of these successes, the CUN states that,currently, 25% of pet food facilities, 28% of bakeries42% of wheat mills and 10% of rice mills will not beable to transition to alternatives even after severalyears. The Party is encouraged to conduct andstrengthen its research program and assist commercialadaptation of alternatives toensure the requirements ofDecision IX/6 are fully met for all sectors included inthis CUN and to avoid these future requirements forMB. The Party has indicated it will reassess thequantity of MB to be permitted through domesticregulation if the circumstances of the nominationchange. For example, as more experience is gainedwith sulfuryl fluoride and heat by 2008, it should bepossible to decrease the needfor MB in flour and ricemilling to allow these sectors to more closely mirrordecreases made in pet foods and bakeries. For anyfuture CUN, MBTOC hopes to receive extensive,detailed research or commercial trial data evaluatingSeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report73Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsthe technical effectivenessand economic feasibility ofalternatives and why alternatives are not applicable inthe circumstances of theUS. Specifically, (1) heattreatments both full site and spot heat, (2) sulfurylfluoride, (3) improvements in IPM and inspectionleading to complete avoidance of MB use or decreasedfrequency of fumigation,(4) phosphine or phosphinecombination treatments, and (5) a combination ofseveral of these.United States Smokehouse ham67.907 40.854 18.998 none 19.669 19.669 MBTOC recommends the requested amount of 19.669tonnes for this use in 2008. Although alternatives forthis use are unknown to MBTOC, the onus rests on theParty to ensure use of methyl bromide is minimized asmuch as possible. The Party has begun a survey offacility gastightness in this sector; low facilitygastightness is a major contributing factor to MB useby two of the applicantsincluded in the CUN.However, two other applicantshave already invested inimproved facilities that reduce MB use. MBTOCexpects that facilities operated by members ofAmerican Meat Association and National CountryHam Association will be required to improvegastightness as a condition of MB use by 2008.MBTOC notes that USDA has provided funds toenable the industry to initiate a research program,including investigating the effectiveness of sulfurylfluoride and IPM, to control pests of ham. The Party isencouraged to conduct research to reduce dosage andemissions by improving gastightness to ensure therequirements of Decision IX/6. MBTOC alsorecommends research to investigate methods to avoidinfestation and processing logistics to allow treatmentby phosphine.The industries that use methylbromide are, in general, subjectto limited pricing power,changing market conditions, andgovernment regulations.Companies operate in a highlycompetitive global market withhigh sales volumes, low profitmargins, and rapid turnover ofinventories. In addition,producers’ associationsgenerally manage companies ofthis type, and, therefore, makingnew capital investment is oftendifficult.United States Cucurbits(field)1187.800 747.839 592.891 588.949 473.211inc. 0.941forresearchMBTOC recommends 473.211 tonnes for this use in2008. This comprises 19.89 tonnes for Michigan,452.380 tonnes for the South East and Georgia and0.941 tonnes for research. Reductions in thenominated amounts conform to the standardpresumptions for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulationsof 17.5 g/m2 for nutsedgeand 15 g/m2 for pathogenswith adoption of LPBF and formulation changes ofMB/Pic to achieve the reductions. Modifications offormulations, for exampleof e.g. MB/Pic 50:50 areavailable and versions ofLPBF, (eg.VIF and metalizedParty reports that 2-stem graftedplug plants cost more than 125%of non-grafted plugs.74September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsfilms) have been widelytested since 2000 and haveshown equivalent effectiveness to MB atapproximately 50% of the commercial dosage rate.InMichigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capsici andFusarium. MBTOC recognizes the Party’s statementthat 1,3-D + Pic may be an effective alternative butgrowers will miss the optimal market window due tolonger plant back times. According to the Party, thistreatment cannot be appliedin autumn because of thebad climatic conditions. Inaddition, a fall applicationof a methyl bromide is not feasible because, over thefall and winter months deerand other animals damagethe plastic and irrigation tape. In SE and Georgia, thekey pest is nutsedge. Karst topography limits affectsthe use of alternatives which include 1,3-Dichloropropene, which are the best alternatives forthese pests. The Party states that metam sodium ormetam potassium are also promising alternatives butstill do not provide consistent control under thecircumstances of the nomination and require furthertrialling. In addition, the Party states that trials areunderway to investigate lower MB/Pic formulationssuch as 50:50 as there are no regulatory restrictions tothe use of these formulations. The Party has indicatedthat 32.5 to 34% of the nomination could transition toalternatives. The Party proposes a 4.7% transition by2008 and have stated it will take more than 7 years totransition the full amount. If future nominations aresubmitted, MBTOC urges the party to provide specificdata from trials on cucurbitsto show the performanceof suitable alternatives.United States Eggplant(field)76.712 81.162 85.363 79.546 47.582inc. 0.444forresearchMBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 47.582tonnes for this use in 2008. This comprises 2.880tonnes for Michigan, 44.258 tonnes for Georgia andFlorida and 0.444 tonnes for research. Reductions inthe nominated amounts conform to the standardpresumptions for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulationsof 17.5 g/m2 for nutsedgeand 15 g/m2 for pathogenswith adoption of LPBF and formulation changes ofMB/Pic and has been adjusted for strip fumigation.Modifications of formulations, for example 50:50MB/Pic are available and versions of LPBF, (eg.VIFand metalized films) havebeen widely tested since2000 and have shown equivalent effectiveness to MBParty reports that 2-stem graftedplug plants cost more than 125%of non-grafted plugs.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report75Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsat approximately 50% of the commercial dosage rate.In addition, the Party states that trials are underway toinvestigate lower MB/Pic formulations such as 50:50as there are no regulatory restrictions to the use ofthese formulations. In Michigan, the key pests arePhytophthora capsici and fusarium. MBTOCrecognizes the Party’s statement that 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be aneffective alternative butgrowers will miss the optimal market window due tolonger plant back times with this alternative.According to the party,this treatment cannot beapplied in autumn becauseof climatic conditions. Inaddition, a fall application of methyl bromide is notfeasible because over the fall and winter months deerand other animals damagethe plastic and irrigationtape. In Florida, the key pests are yellow and purplenutsedge, Phytophthora, nematodes, Pythium andsclerotinia. In Georgia the key pests are yellow andpurple nutsedge, Phytophthora,nematodes, southernblight and Pythium and sclerotinia. Karst topographylimits the use of alternatives which include 1,3-Dichloropropene, which are the best alternatives forthese pests on 40% of the growing acreage in Floridaand 8% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party states thatmetam sodium or metam potassium are promisingalternatives but still do not provide consistent controlunder the circumstances of the nomination and requirefurther trialing. For Florida and Georgia, the majorityof MBTOC (87% of members present) considers that25% transition can occur by 2008 and has reduced thenomination accordingly. A minority considered thatthis transition rate was inappropriate. The Partyacknowledged that (26%) of the total nomination canbe transitioned to alternatives over time. The Partyproposes a 4% transition in 2008 and has stated it willtake more than 7 years to transition the full amount.MBTOC considers several alternatives available for thenomination, and that uptake of alternatives for this cropin regions with similar pests and climate has occurredwithin 4 years or less (eg Spain, Italy, Australia)(Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti,2004; Tostovrsnik et al2005;Minuto et al, 2003). MBTOC considers thatthere are technical alternatives for both karst and nonkarst areas in Florida, Georgia and the southeast. In76September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicstomato trials conducted in Florida on a key pest,nutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35 with and without VIFMNa/Pic provided similar yields as MB/Pic 67:33 in 3trials over the spring and fall of 2003 and spring of2004 (Santos, et al, 2005) even with moderate to severenutsedge infestations. Inother studies involvingcommercial scale fields, similar control of pests andsimilar yields have been realized (refs).United States Forestnursery192.515 157.694 122.032 133.140 96.829MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 96.829tfor this use in 2008. MBTOC has adjusted the rates toa uniform rate of 20 g/m2 to conform to the standardpresumptions for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulationswith adoption of LPBF and formulation changes ofMB/Pic to achieve the reductions. Technologies areavailable to glue LPBF films on a broadacre basis(IPM Technologies, Rimini Pty Ltd). MBTOCrecognizes that propagative material requires a veryhigh level of soilborne pestand pathogen control inorder to avoid widespreaddistribution of pests andpathogens. The Party has averaged a transitionreduction in the amount nominated of 8% per yearsince 2006 nomination. Based on this, MBTOC hasadjusted the recommended amount to account for 8%adoption of alternatives in 2008. The CUN is based oneconomic infeasibility of using substrates and the lackof effective alternatives for control of nutsedge and arange of fungal pathogens. It covers certified seedlingproduction in 7 forest nurseryregions. Research isongoing to determine if Pic with metham sodium, 1,3-D alone or in combination with Pic and /or herbicidescan provide acceptable control of moderate to severelevels of nutsedge (Muckensfuss, 2005, Wang, 2005,2006). To date, metham sodium and chloropicrin incombination showed promising results, but when usedwithout plastic sheeting caused severe crop injury. TheParty acknowledged that this treatment (and others)when used in conjunction with LBPF barrier films,may provide an effective technical alternative andavoid crop injury. MBTOC also considers glyphosatecan be used as a pretreatment to reduce pressure fromnutgrass and 1,3-D/Pic + metham sodium (orglyphosate) should be further evaluated for control ofnutsedge as results in trials have been promising(Fraedrich, 2005; Culpepper and Langston, 2004).The CUN is based on economicinfeasibility of using substratesand the lack of effectivealternatives for control ofnutsedge and a range of fungalpathogens. It covers certifiedseedling production in 7 forestnursery regions and one regionin Michigan growing herbaceousperennials. Certificationrequires that seedlings must bepest/pathogen free. The Partystates that all regions usebroadacre fumigation, but withdifferent mixtures and rates ofMB/Pic. MBTOC recognizesthat the key pest is nutsedge.Research is ongoing todetermine if Pic with metham,1,3-D and /or herbicides canprovide acceptable control ofmoderate to severe levels ofnutsedge. To date, methamsodium and chloropicrin incombination showed promisingresults, but when used withoutplastic sheeting caused severecrop injury. The Partyacknowledged that this treatment(and others) when covered withplastic films, particularly LPFbarrier films, may provide aneffective technical alternativeand avoid crop injury. MBTOCconsiders new films and gluesare available for broadacreSeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report77Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicstarping under most conditions,however the Party will need timeto trial and scale up thisalternative. Although no furtherreductions have been made byMBTOC to the nomination, theParty is urged to consideradoption of LPF barrier films toreduce dosage rates in regionswhere their use is permitted.Broadacre use of LPF barrierfilms exists in other regionsworldwide. MBTOC alsoconsiders glyphosate can be usedas a pretreatment to reducepressure from nutgrass and 1,3-D/Pic + metham sodium (orglyphosate) should be furtherevaluated for control of nutsedgeas results in trials have beenpromising (Culpepper andLangston, 2004). Thenomination states thatcontainerised plants are noteconomically feasible forregions A through G. MBTOCconsiders substrates to be aneffective technical alternative formost forest nurseries, howeverunderstands that present costs($US0.12 vs. $0.04 per seedling)make this practice economicallyinfeasible at the present time.78September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsUnited States Nurserystock(fruit, nut,flower)45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 23.253inc. 1.506forresearchMBTOC recommends 23.253 t for this use in 2008.This represents 1.998 t for roses, 11.289 t for fruittrees, 8.46 t for raspberries, and 1.506 t for research.MBTOC has adjusted the raspberry amount usingMBTOC’s standard rate of 20 g/m2 for propagativematerial to conform to the standard presumptions fordosage rate of MB/Pic formulations with adoption ofLPBFand formulation changes to achieve thereductions. LPBF cannot be used with MB inCalifornia. MBTOC recognizes that propagativematerial requires a very high level of soilborne pestand pathogen control in order to avoid widespreaddistribution of pests and pathogens. This nomination isfor propagation materials that needs to be certified asfree of pests and diseases. Certification is mandatoryfor California and is voluntary in Washington. Thecrop has no value if it is not certified. MBTOCacknowledges the difficulty in protecting raspberryroots to 1.5m depths. MBTOC acknowledges thatMB/Pic formulations 67:33 and 50:50 were used inother countries and urges the Party to consider thesealternatives as a transition strategy to reduce MBdosage in the absence of effective alternatives. Furthervalidation of their effectiveness is sought in futurenominations. MBTOC has identified studies(McKenry, 1999) which indicate that 1,3-D at highrates (greater than 390 kg/ha) can be effective atcontrolling pests and killingold perennial roots up to1.5m deep. Although, these high rates are not allowedby regulation in California, it appears that the highrates would be allowed in Washington. MBTOC hastherefore reduced the amount of methyl bromiderequested by raspberry nurseries to account forimplementation of use of 1,3-D on 10% of thenominated area.No economic data onalternatives givenSeptember 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report79Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsUnited States Orchardreplant706.176 527.600 405.400 405.666 365.094 MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 365.09tonnes for this use in 2008. This represents a 10%reduction of the nominated amount to account foradoption of the MB/Pic 67/33 formulation. AlsoMBTOC understand the limitation of 1,3-D/Pic use inthis nomination. MBTOC considers this formulationeffective against both fungalpathogens and nematodes.Commercial adoption of thisformulation and otherscontaining lower amounts of MB (eg 50:50) were usedpredominantly for orchard replant treatment in othercountries before they switched to alternatives. Basedon the Party response to questions, the use of MBformulations with a higheramount of Pic (e.g. MB/Pic67:33) is an option where fungal pathogen causereplant disorder. According to Trout et al, 2003,chloropicrin has been foundto have a positive effect insome replant syndrome in orchard situations and thisproduct is now used routinely in New Zealand Orchardreplant situations.An economic analysis was notdone for this sector becausemost of the losses cannot bequantified. Factors thatcontribute to losses includedelayed planting, fallow,additional use of herbicides, treeloss, replant costs to replace treelosses, loss of trees replanted,yield loss of fruit or nuts,delayed achievement of fullyield potential, earlier loss ofproductivity of whole orchard.United States Ornamentals154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 123.333inc. 4.060forresearchMBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 123,333tfor this use in 2008. This includes 62.68 t forCalifornia, 2.213 t for Michigan, 58.44 t for Florida,and 4.060 t for research. MBTOC adjusted theMichigan portion to conform to the standardpresumptions for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulationswith adoption of use/emission reduction techniquessuch as LPBF and formulation changes of MB/Pic toachieve the reductions and in California to standarddosage rates of 200kg/ha with standard polyethylenefilms. The Party states that high rates of 350 kg/Ha arenecessary for controlling tubersin high organic (muck)soils in Florida and MBTOC requests studiesdemonstrating that lowerdoses will not achieveadequate control. The party has averaged a transitionreduction in the amount nominated of 7.75% per yearsince 2006 nomination. Based on this, MBTOC hasadjusted the nominated amount to account for 7.75%adoption of alternatives in 2008. This nomination isessentially 100% field grownornamentals in Californiaand Florida and Michigan nurseries. One of the keyissues for California and Florida is cleaning fields ofbulbs and tubers left from previous crops. The Partyhas identified 1,3 -D/Pic + herbicides or metham + Picas potential alternatives (Gilreath et al, 1999; Elmore etCUN reports yield losses of 20-25 percent with alternatives.Operating costs were assumedsame as with methyl bromide.CUN reports substantialdecreases in gross and netrevenues. Negative net revenuespredicted for calla lilies andbulbs in California and forcaladiums in Florida.Alternatives for herbaceousperennials in Michigan show 3-5% decrease in yield.80September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsal. 2003; Gilreath et al., 2005b). The Party states thatthe nomination accounts for use of MB fumigation lessthan once per year where applicable. For any futureCUN, MBTOC hopes to receive extensive, detailedresearch or commercial trial data evaluating thetechnical effectiveness and economic feasibility ofalternatives and why alternatives are not applicable inthe circumstances of this nomination.United States Peppers(field)1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 919.006 551.045inc. 2.844forresearchMBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 551.045tonnes for this nomination for this use in 2008. Thiscomprises 10.62 t for Michigan, 57.724 t for theSoutheast, 105.446 t for Georgia, 374.412 t for Floridaand 2.844 tonnes for research for use in 2008.Reductions in the nominated amounts conform to thestandard presumptions for dosage rate of MB/Picformulations of 17.5 g/m2for nutsedge and 15 g/m2for pathogens with adoptionof LPBF and formulationchanges of MB/Pic and has been adjusted for stripfumigation. Modificationsof formulations, forexample of e.g. 50:50 MB/Pic, are available andversions of LPBF, (eg.VIFand metalized films) havebeen widely tested since 2000 and have shownequivalent effectiveness toMB at approximately 50%of the commercial dosage rate. In addition, the partystates that trials are underway to investigate lowerMB/Pic formulations such as 50:50 as there are noregulatory restrictions to the use of these formulations.In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capsiciand fusarium. MBTOC recognizes the Party’sstatement that 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effectivealternative but growers will miss the optimal marketwindow due to longer plant back times with thisalternative. According tothe Party, this treatmentcannot be applied in autumn because of climaticconditions. In addition, a fall application of methylbromide is not feasible because over the fall and wintermonths deer and other animals damage the plastic andirrigation tape. Phytophthora is controlled in manyregions by foliar sprays and grafting. In Florida, thekey pests are yellow and purple nutsedge,Phytophthora, nematodes, Pythium and sclerotinia. InGeorgia the key pests are yellow and purple nutsedge,Phytophthora, nematodes, southern blight and Pythiumand sclerotinia. In the southeast the key pests areParty reports that 2-stem graftedplug plants cost more than 125%of non-grafted plugs.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report81Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsyellow and purple nutsedge, Phytophthora, Pythiumand plant parasitic nematodes. Karst topography limitsthe use of alternatives which include 1,3-Dichloropropene, which are the best alternatives forthese pests. The Party states that metam sodium ormetam potassium are promising alternatives but still donot provide consistent control under the circumstancesof the nomination and require further trialing. For theSoutheast, Florida and Georgia, the majority ofMBTOC (87% of members present) considers that a25% transition can occur by 2008 and has reduced thenomination accordingly. A minority considered thatthis transition rate was inappropriate. The Partyacknowledged that 32% of the total nomination can betransitioned to alternatives over time. The Partyproposes a 4.6% transition in 2008 and have stated itwill take more than 7 years to transition the fullamount. MBTOC considers several alternativesavailable for the nomination, and that uptake ofalternatives for this crop in regions with similar pestsand climate has occurred within 4 years or less (egSpain, Italy, Australia) (Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik et al2005;Minuto et al, 2003). MBTOC considers thatthere are technical alternatives for both karst and nonkarst areas in Florida, Georgia and the southeast. Intomato trials conducted in Florida on a key pest,nutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35 with and without VIFMNa/Pic provided similar yields as MB/Pic 67:33 in 3trials over the spring and fall of 2003 and spring of2004 (Gilreathet al,2004; Santos, et al, 2005) evenwith moderate to severe nutsedge infestations. Inother studies involving commercial scale fields, similarcontrol of pests and similar yields have been realized(Locascio et al, 2000, Nelson et al, 2002, Gilreath andSantos, 2004; Gilreath et al., 2005; Lacasa, 2006;Gilreathet al, 2006).United States Strawberry(field)2052.846 1730.778 1476.019 1604.669 1025.388inc. 2.377forresearchMBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 1085.682tonnes for this nomination for 2008. This comprises897.917 t for California, 114.225 t for Florida, 71.163 tfor Eastern states and 2.377 t for research. Thenomination for Californiais based on regulatoryconstraints (township caps and county limits), hillyterrain preventing the use of drip-applied alternatives,missed market windows due to longer set-up orParty reports detailed enterpriseanalysis for strawberry fruitproduction in California andeastern US. Based on theParty’s predicted yield loss withthe best alternatives, net revenuedeclines 62% in California and42% in eastern US.82September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicstreatment times, and lack of protocols for commercialapplication of alternatives. A large number of studieshave shown that alternatives such as 1,3-D/Pic,Pic+metam, Pic and Pic+LPBFprovide similar yieldsto MB in strawberry fruit production (Ajwa et al 2002,2003, 2004, Haar et al. 2001, Gilreath, 2005ab; Nelsonet al. 2001a,b; studies cited in TEAP May 2006 SpecialReport). By 2005 almost half (about 6000 ha) of theCalifornian strawberry fruit sector had adoptedalternatives. The average adoption rate of alternativeshas been 12% of the crop area/year since 2002 (about1400 ha/year), and the Californian StrawberryCommision stated the current rate is 10-15% per year.Over a longer timeframe, since 1999, the adoption ratewas 181 tonnes reduction per year average. MBTOChas calculated that this rate can continue for 2008without exceeding the township and county restrictionson fumigants, and has therefore reduced thenomination to reflect this. Many growers have chosento adopt alternatives despite the fact that supplies ofMB are available, with the result that alternatives havebeen adopted by about 50% of the sector. On hillyterrain, injection or pressure-compensated drip systemscan be used in a number of cases. LPBF/VIF is notallowed for MB in California at present, so MBTOCdid not apply further reductions for this. In Easternstates the nomination request is based on a lack ofprotocols for alternatives,moderate to severe pestpressure affecting part of the crop area, and small farmbuffer zones which limit use of 1,3-D in certain areas.MBTOC considers that alternatives are available forareas of moderate pest pressure (1,3-D/Pic,Pic+LPBF), and for buffer zones (Pic, Pic+LPBF,metham + Pic) (Ajwa et al. 2003, 2004; Gilreath,2005ab). For the Southeast, the majority of MBTOC(87% of members present) considers that 25%transition can occur by 2008 and has reduced thenomination accordingly. A minority considered thatthis transition rate was inappropriate.The Partyacknowledged that 33% of the total nomination can betransitioned to alternatives over time. The partyestimates it may take 7 years to transition. However,adoption rates for alternatives have been significantlygreater in comparable strawberry production regions.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report83Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsMBTOC reduced the nomination to allow for uptake ofalternatives on part of thearea of low-moderate pestpressure. The standard dose rates (17.5 and 15 g/m2)were used to calculate the amount for the remainingarea. The nomination request in Florida is based on alack of protocols for commercial use of alternatives in2008 for moderate to severe pest pressure (primarilynutsedge) which affects 37% of the area. However,parts of the CUN experience low to moderate pestpressure (on karst) where alternatives (e.g. pic+metam,pic+LPBF) provide yields that are statistically similarto MB (Fennimore et al. 2003, Gilreath et al 2003,Nelson et al 2002, Ajwa et al 2003, 2004; Gilreath2005a, studies cited in TEAP May 2006 SpecialReport), therefore MBTOC reduced the nomination toallow for uptake of alternatives on part of the area oflow-moderate pest pressure. The rate on the remainingarea has been adjusted tothe current MBTOC standarddoses (17.5 and 15 g/m2). Recent studies on theeconomics of alternatives for strawberry production inCalifornia and southeastern US concluded that the netrevenues from certain alternatives are not significantlybelow MB levels, and in some cases alternativesprovide greater net revenues than MB (Goodhue &Fennimore; Sydorovych et al. 2006, 2004; Norman,2005)United States Strawberryrunners54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944 inc.0.454 forresearchMBTOC recommends 7.944 tonnes for this use in2008. This comprises 4.69 tonnes for CA , 2.8 tonnesfor SE and 0.454 tonnes for research. The CUN statesthat MB is required to meet the certification standardsfor strawberry runners. The Party's request exceedsMBTOC's standard presumption of 20 g/m2 of MBwhich is considered effective for production of 'highhealth' strawberry runners using LPBF and otheremission control technologies (UNEP/TEAP October2005); however, California’s certification requirementsspecify minimum amounts of MB that must be applied.Furthermore, California regulations prohibit the use ofLPBF. The Party indicatesthat key alternativesinclude 1,3-D + PIC, 1,3-D + PIC + MS, and 1,3-D +MS and Daz + Pic but that these have not beensufficiently developed to provide adequate disease andnematode control throughout the root zone (up to 1 mdeep). In future nominations, the Party is requested toParty notes that higher costs ofLPBF may be offset by reducedfumigant costs because ofreduced rates. It is noted that inthe case of VIF films installationis slower leading to higher costsfor this stage of production.84September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsprovide supporting data to validate the impact of thison the disease levels observed on strawberry runnersfor MB and alternatives.United States Sweetpotato slips0.000 80.830 0.000 18.144 0 NR MBTOC does not recommend this nomination.MBTOC agrees with the Party that this nomination isfor a contingency use of methyl bromide, in case thegrower preferred alternative of 1,3-D is not availabledue to township caps.No economic data onalternatives given. Factors thatcontribute to losses includedelayed planting due to use ofalternatives; fallow; additionaluse of herbicides; losses due toweeds, insects and diseasesresulting in smaller, lessattractive produce (quality loss)United States Tomatoes(field)2876.046 2476.364 2065.246 1840.100 1076.508inc. 2.844forresearchMBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 1076.508tonnes for this use in 2008. This comprises 22,680tonnes for Michigan, 87.74 t for Georgia, 281.795 forthe SE, 681.449 for Florida and 2.844 tonnes forresearch. Reductions in the nominated amountsconform to the standard presumptions for dosage rateof MB/Pic formulations of17.5 g/m2 for nutsedge and15 g/m2 for pathogens with adoption of barrier films,LPBF, and formulation changes of MB/Pic and hasbeen adjusted for strip fumigation. Modifications offormulations, for example50:50 MB/Pic are availableand versions of LPBF, (eg.VIF and metalized films)have been widely testedsince 2000 and have shownequivalent effectiveness toMB at approximately 50%of the commercial dosage rate. In addition, the Partystates that trials are underway to investigate lowerMB/Pic formulations such as 50:50 as there are noregulatory restrictions to the use of these formulations.In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capsiciand fusarium. MBTOC recognizes the party’sstatement that 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effectivealternative but growers will miss the optimal marketwindow due to longer plant back times with thisalternative. According tothe Party, this treatmentcannot be applied in autumn because of climaticconditions. In addition, a fall application of methylbromide is not feasible because over the fall and wintermonths deer and other animals damage the plastic andirrigation tape. Phytophthora is controlled in manyregions by foliar sprays and grafting. In Florida, theParty notes that higher costs ofLPBF may be offset by reducedfumigant costs because ofreduced rates. It is noted that inthe case of VIF films installationis slower leading to higher costsfor this stage of production.Party reports that 2-stem graftedplug plants cost more than 125%of non-grafted plugs.September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report85Country Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicskey pests are yellow and purple nutsedge,Phytophthora, nematodes, Pythium and sclerotinia. InGeorgia the key pests are yellow and purple nutsedge,Phytophthora, nematodes, southern blight and Pythiumand sclerotinia. In the southeast the key pests areyellow and purple nutsedge, Phytophthora, Pythiumand plant parasitic nematodes. Karst topography limitsthe use of alternatives which include 1,3-Dichloropropene, which are the best alternatives forthese pests. The Party states that metam sodium ormetam potassium are promising alternatives but still donot provide consistent control under the circumstancesof the nomination and require further trialing. For theSoutheast, Florida and Georgia, the majority ofMBTOC (87% of members present) considers that25% transition can occur by 2008 and has reduced thenomination accordingly. A minority considered thatthis transition rate was inappropriate. The Partyacknowledged that 57% of the total nomination can betransitioned to alternatives over time. The Partyproposes a 8.1% transition in 2008 and have stated itwill take more than 7 years to transition the fullamount. MBTOC considers several alternativesavailable for the nomination, and that uptake ofalternatives for this crop in regions with similar pestsand climate has occurred within 4 years or less (egSpain, Italy, Australia) (Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik et al2005;Minuto et al, 2003). MBTOC considers thatthere are technical alternatives for both karst and nonkarst areas in Florida, Georgia and the southeast. Intomato trials conducted in Florida on a key pest,nutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35, with and without, VIFMNa/Pic provided similar yields as MB/Pic 67:33 in 3trials over the spring and fall of 2003 and spring of2004 (Santos, et al, 2005) even with moderate to severenutsedge infestations. Inother studies involvingcommercial scale fields, similar control of pests andsimilar yields have been realized (Locascio et al, 2000,Nelson et al, 2002, Gilreath and Santos, 2004; Gilreathet al., 2005; Lacasa, 2006).86September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry 2005approved2006approved2007approved2007 newnomination2008nomination2007recommendation2008recommendationMBTOC comments MBTOC comments oneconomicsUnited States Turfgrass 206.827 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 NR MBTOC does not recommend MB for use in USA sodproduction. Effective alternatives have been found for99% of all turf production and the Party hassignificantly reduced the nomination requests for thisuse from 207 t in 2005 to 78 t in 2007. Alternativessuch as dazomet provide equal control of weedygrasses and slightly bettercontrol of broadleaf weedswhen compared to MB, (Unruh et al., 2002). 1,3-D and1,3-D + Chloropicrin can beused if nematodes are theprimary pest, or possibly inconjunction with dazometor metam-sodium. Metam-Sodium /Chloropicrinprovided comparable control (vs. MB) of weedygrasses and nutsedge (e.g., Unruh and Brecke, 2001;Unruh et al., 2002).CUN is for turf productionintended to be sold as certifiedsod. CUN identifies dazomet asnext best alternative to methylbromide and states quality losseswith dazomet would excludemuch of production fromcertified market leading tosubstantial losses in gross andnet revenue. CUN states pricefor non-certified sod is 75percent lower than price forcertified sod.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 87 2.8 References

Ajwa H.A., Fennimore, S., Ka bin, Z., Martin, F., Duniwa y, J., Browne, G., Trout, T., Kahn, A. and Daugovish, O.

(2004). Strawberry yield with chloropicrin and inline in combination with metam sodium and VIF. In:

Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions

3-6 November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Ajwa, H.A.,. Fennimore, S, Kabin, Z. , Martin, F., Duniway, J., Browne, G. , Trout, Goodhue T R., and Guerrero L.

(2003). Strawberry yield under reduced application rate s of chloropicrin and InLine in combination with

metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Re search Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives

and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November 2003, San Diego, California, USA.

Ajwa, H.A. Trout, T., Fenn imore, S., Winterbottom, C. , Martin, F., Duniway, J., Browne, G., Westerdahl, B.,

Goodhue, R. and Guerrero L. (2002). Strawberry pr oduction with alternative fumigants applied through

drip irrigation systems. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives

and Emissions Reductions 6-8 Novemb er 2002, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Akkaya, F., Ozturk, A. and Ozkan, B. ( 2004). An economic analysis of alternatives to us e of methyl bromide for

greenhouse vegetables (t omatoes, cucumbers) and cut flowers ( carnation). Acta Hort. 638: 479 - 485.

Ausher, R. (2004). Personal communication. Rehovot, Israel

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Australian Co mmodity Statistics- Rural Commodities. Summary of

Australian Statistics for Rice. Page 198 www.ab areconomics.com/intera ctive/ACS_2005/pdf/acsruralcomm.pdf

Barel, M. (2006). Personal co mmunication, The Netherlands.

Barel, M. (2004). Improved techniques for the cost effectiv e application of steam as an alternative to methyl

bromide. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide,

Lisbon, 27- 30 September, 2004.

Barel, M. (2003). Steam training course manual, UNDP, New York.

Bartual, R., Cebolla, V., Bustos, J., Gi ner, A. and Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2002) . The Spanish project on alternatives

to methyl bromide. (2): The case of strawberry in the area of Valenc ia. Acta Hort. 567: 431-434.

Batchelor, T.A. (2002). International and European Comm unity controls on methyl bromide and the status of

methyl bromide use and alternatives in the Europ ean Community. In: Proc.International Conference on

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 5-8 March 2002, Sevilla. Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities: Luxembourg. pp. 35-39.

Batchelor, T.A. (ed.) (2000). Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Technol ogies with Low

Environmental Impact. UNEP. Paris. 77pp.

Besri, M. (2004). Leading Methyl Brom ide alternatives in commercial use for tomato production in different

geographic regions except the United States. In: Fifth International Conference On Alternatives to

Methyl Bromide, 26-30 September, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal Sept 2004.

Besri, M. (2003). Tomato grafting as an alternative to Mtehyl Bromide in Morocco. In: Annual International

Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November 2003,

San Diego, California, USA. Pp. 12.1-4

Carrera, T, Carrera, A and Pedros, A. (2004). Use of 1, 3-dichloropropene / chloropicrin for the production of

strawberries in Spain. In: Proceedi ngs of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide.

27-30 September 2004. Lisbon.

Cebolla, V., Bartual, R., Giner, A and. Bustos, J. (1999). Two years effect on some alternatives to Methyl

Bromide on strawberry crops. In: Annual Interna tional Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reduc tion 1999. 1-4 November, 1999, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 1-

1.

Culpepper S. and Langston, D. (2004). Fumigant/ he rbicide combinations. Unpublished study conducted by

researchers at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Included in US CUE package 2004.

De Cal, A., Martinez-Treceño, A., Salto, T., López-Aranda , L.M. and Melgarejo, P. (2005). Effect of chemical

fumigation on soil fungal communities in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Appl. Soil Ecol. 28: 47 – 56.

De Cal, A., Martínez-Terceno, A., Lóp ez-Aranda, J.M. and Melgarejo P. ( 2004a) Alternatives to methyl bromide

in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Plant Disease 88(2): 210-214.

# 88 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report De Cal, A., Melgarejo, P., Martinez-Treceno, A., Salto , T., Martinez-Beringola, M. L., Garcia-Ba udin, J. M.,

Garcia-Sinovas, D., Garcia-Mendez, E., Becerril, M., Medina, J. J. a nd Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2004b)

Chemical altern atives to MB for strawberry nurseries in Sp ain. 2003 Results. In: Annual International

Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2004. 31 October - 3

November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 17-1.

De Miguel, A. (2004a). Use of grafted cucurbits in the Medi terranean region as an alternative to Methyl Bromide.

In: Fifth International Conference On Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 26 - 30 September, 2004, Lisbon,

Portugal.

De Miguel, A. (2004b). Use of grafted plants and IPM methods for the production of tomatoes in the

Mediterranean region. In: Fifth International Confer ence On Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 26-

30 September, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.

Dosland O., Subramanjam B., Sheppard K. and Mahroof, R. (2006). Temperatur e modification for insect control.

In: Insect management for food storage and processing. Heaps J.W. (ed) American Association of Cereal

Chemists. St. Paul Minnesota. USA 3340 P ilot Knob Rd. St. Paul Minnesota USA 55121

Drakes, D, Briercliffe, T, Lightfoot-Brown, S, Arnold, D and Mackay, N. (2001). The use and disposal of growing

media. ADAS Horticulture. UK. 40 pp

Ducom-Gallerne, V. and Vinghes, C. (2001). Rice milling as an alternative to methyl bromide for the control of

the rice weevil. In: Donahaye, E. J ., Navarro, S., and Leesch, J. (eds), Proceedings of the International

Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigatio n in Stored Products, Fresno, California, October

2000, Vol. II, 765-770.

Duniway, J. M., Xiao, C. L. and G ubler, W. D. (1998) Response of stra wberry to soil fumigation: Microbial

mechanisms and some alternatives to Methyl Bromid e. In: Annual International Research Conference

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives a nd Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 Dece mber, 1998, Orlando, Florida,

USA pp. 6-1.

Elmore, C., Roncoroni, J. and Tjosvold, S. (2003). Trea tment combinations to improve efficacy in field- grown

flowers. In: Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and

Emissions Reductions. November 3 – 6, 2003, San Diego, Californi a, USA. p. 112-1.

Engindeniz, S. (2004) Economic analysis of growing gr eenhouse cucumber with soilless culture system: the case

of Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 23 , 5-19.

European Community, (2006). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of the critical uses of

Methyl Bromide. 65 pp

Fennimore, S, Kabir, Z, Ajwa, H, Daugovish, O, Roth, K and Valdez, J. (2003). Chloropicrin and Inline doseresponse under VIF and HDPE film: weed control result s. In: Proc. Annual International Research

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions N ovember 3 – 6, 2003, San

Diego, California, USA. p. 112-1.. pp.2/1-2/4

Ferguson, L.M., Fernande z, G.E., Brannen, P.M., Louws, F.J., Poli ng, E.B., Sydorovych, O., Safley, C. D.,

Monks, D.M., Pesic-Van Esbroeck, Sanders, and Smith. (2001). Alternative Soil Treatments for

Strawberry in the Southeastern United States, In: A nnual International Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 5 – 9, 2001, San Diego, California, USA.

Fraedrich S.W, Dwinell, L.D., and Cram , M.M. (2003). Broadcast Applications of Glyphosate Control Nutsedge at

a South Georgia Forest Tree Nursery. Southe rn Journal of Applied Forestry 27(3): 176-179

Fritsch, J. (2002). The current status of alternatives to methyl bromid e in vegetable crops in France. In:

International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. March 5-8 2002. Seville, 193-195.

Fritsch, J. (1998). Strawberries crops in France: different methods to apply methyl bromide and metam sodium in

open fields. In: Annual International Research C onference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and

Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida

Gerik, J.S. (2005). Drip applied soil fumigants for fl oriculture production. Annua l International Research

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 31 Oct – 3 Nov. 2005, San

Diego, California, 105-1-4

Gerik, J.S., Greene, I.D., Beckman, P. and Elmore, C. (2006). Pre-plant dr ip-applied fumigation for Calla lily

rhizome nursery. HortTechnology 16(2): 297 – 300

Gilreath J.P., Santos, B.M., Motis T.N. , Noling, J.W. and Mirusso, J.M. (2006) . Methyl bromide alternatives for

nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum a nnuum). Crop Protection 25 (in press)

Gilreath, J.P., Noling, J.W., Motis, T.N., Rosskopf, E. and Santos, B.M. (2003) Long term effect of fumigant and

herbicide combinations in bell pepper. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissi ons Reductions, 3-6 November 2003, San Diego, California, USA.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 89 Gilreath J.P., Motis T.N. a nd Santos B.M. (2005a). Cyperus spp. control with reduced methyl bromide plus

chloropicrin doses under virtua lly impermeable films. Cr op Protection 24, 285-287.

Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Motis, T.N., Noling, J.W. a nd Mirusso, J.M. (2005b). Methyl bromide alternatives for

nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper ( Capsicum annuum ). Crop Protection 24: 903-908

Gilreath, J.P., McSorley, R. and McGovern, R. (2005c). Soil fumigant and herbicide combinations for caladium.

Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions

31 Oct – 3 Nov., 2005 San Diego, California

Gilreath, J.P. and Santos, B.M. (2004a). Herbicide dos e and incorporation depth in combination with 1,3-

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin for Cyperus rotundus control in tomato and pepper. Crop Protection

23: 205 – 210.

Gilreath, J.P., Noling, J.W. and Santos, B.M. (2004b). Methyl Brom ide alternatives for bell pepper ( Capsicum

annuum ) and cucumber ( Cucumis sativus ) rotations. Crop Protection 23: 347 – 351.

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T. N., Santos, B. M. and Noling, J.W. (2003). Retentio n of 1,3-dichloropropene and nutsedge

control with Virtually Im permeable Film. In: Annual Internatio nal Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emi ssions Reductions Nov 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California USA.

Gilreath, J.P., McSorley, R. and McGovern, R.J. (1999). Soil fumigant and herbicide combinations for soilborne

pest control in caladiums. Proc. Fla. State. Hort. Soc. 112: 285 - 290

Goodhue, R.E., Fennimore, S.A. and Aj wa, H.A. (2005). The economic importa nce of methyl bromide: does the

California strawberry industry qualif y for a critical use exemption from the methyl bromide ban? Review

of agricultural economics. 2005 27(2): 198-211

Gullino, M.L., Camponogara , A., Gasparrini, G.,Rizzo, V., Cini, C. an d Garibaldi, A. (2003). Replacing Methyl

Bromide for soil disinfestation. The Italian experi ence and its implicatons for other countries. Plant

Disease 87 (9): 1012 – 1019.

Haar, M., Fennimore, S. and Ajwa, H. ( 2001). Weed control efficacy of drip irrigation applied chloropicrin, metam

sodium and 1,3-D. In: Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives

and Emissions Reductions, November 5 – 9, 2002 , San Diego, California, USA. Paper 90.

Haglund W. A. (1999). Metam sodium a pot ential alternative to methyl bromid e. In: Proc. Annual International

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California,

USA. Paper 23.

Hamill, J. E., Dickson, D. W., T-Ou, L., Allen, L. H., Bure lle, N. K. and Mendes, M. L. (2004). Reduced rates of

MBR and C35 under LDPE and VIF for control of so il pests and pathogens. In : Annual International

Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2004. 31 October - 3

November, 2003, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 2-1.

Horner, I.J. (1999). Alternative soil fumigant trials in New Zealand strawberry production. In: Annual

International Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, San

Diego, California, USA

Horner, I .J. and Jensen E .H. (2005). Effectiveness of phosphorous acid for Phytopthora control in the New

Zealand strawberry industry. Final report for Strawberry Growers New Zealand Inc.

Kah, E.M. (2005).Effect of grafting on gr owth, performance and yield of aubergine ( Solanum melongea L.) in the

field and greenhouse. J. of Food Agric. and Environ. 3(3&4): 92-94

Kipp, J.A., Wever, G. and de Kreij, C. (2000). Internati onal Substrate Manual. Research Station for Floriculture

and Glasshouse Vegetables, Aalsmeer, the Netherla nds. Elsevier Internati onal, Doetinchem, The

Netherlands, 94 pp.

Lacasa, A. (2006). Applications of 1,3-Dichloropropene in vegetable crops in South Ea st of Spain. Polytechnic

University of Cartagena, Spain.

Leoni, S and Ledda, L. (2004). Influenza delle limitazioni nell 'uso del bromuro di metilo sull'ortcoltura in serra

della Sardegna. In: Workshop Intern azionale: La Produzione in Serra dopo l'era del Bromuro di Metile.

April 1-3, 2004, Comiso, 253-263.

Lieten, F. (2004). Substrates as an alternative to methyl bromide for strawberry fruit production in Northern

Europe in both protected and field production. In: Proceedings of International Conference on

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27- 30 September 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.

Locascio, S.J., Dickson, D.W. and Mitchell, D.J. (2000) . Chloropicrin enhancement of metam sodium as an

alternative to methyl bromide for mulched toma to. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.2000, 198-200.

# 90 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report López-Aranda, J.M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Los Santos, B., Soria, C. Medina, J.J. Montes, F. , Vega, J. M.,

Páez, J.I., Bascón, J. Talavera, M. Pérez R. and Z ea, T. (2006). Alternativas químicas al bromuro de

metilo en fresa. Trabajos realizados en España sobre alternativas al bromuro de metilo en fresa: Resumen

de resultados (Research undertaken in Spain on alterna tives to methyl bromide: summary of results). In:

International Workshop on Alternativ es to Methyl Bromide for strawb erries and flowers, Auggust 22 –

23, 2006 Ixtapan de la Sal, Mexico.

López-Aranda, J.M., Santos, .M., Gilrea th, J.P., Miranda, L., Soria, C. an d Medina, J.J. (2005). Evaluation of

methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry in Fl orida and Spain. In: Annual International Research

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emi ssions Reduction, Oct 31 - November 3, 2005, San

Diego California, USA.

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Los Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., Bascon, J.,

and Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva (Spain). 2003

Results. In: Annual International Research Conferen ce on Methyl Bromide Alte rnatives and Emissions

Reductions 2003. November, 2003, Sa n Diego, California, USA pp. 33-1.

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Romero, F., Montes, F., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Vega, J. M., Paez, J.

I., Dominguez, F., Lopez-Medina, J., and Flores, F. (2001a). Chemical and Non-Chemical Alternatives

to MB Fumigation of Soil for Strawberry. 2000- 2001 Results. In: Annual International Research

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001,

San Diego, California, USA, pp. 40-1.

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Domingue z, F., Sanchez-Vidal, M. D., LopezMedina, J., and Flores, F. (2001b). Agronomic Beha viour of Strawberry Coming From Different Types

of Soil Fumigation in Nurseries. In: Annual Intern ational Research Conferen ce on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reduc tions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA, pp.

38-1.

Lopez-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J ., Miranda, L., and Dominguez, F. (2000) . Three Years of Short-Term

Alternatives To MB on Huelva Stra wberries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2000. 6-9 November, 2000 , Orlando, Florida, USA, pp.

10-1.

Loumakis, N. (2004). Protected vegeta ble production in Mediterranean regions without the use of Methyl

Bromide. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30

September 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.

Lucas E. and J. Ruidavets. (2000). Lethal and sub-lethal effects of rice polishing process on Sitophilus oryzae

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 93(6) 1837 – 1841.

Mann, R.C., Mattner, S. W., Gounder, R.K., Brett R.K. and Porter I.J. (2005). Eval uating novel soil fumigants for

Australian horticulture. Pp 34-1 – 34-4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissi on Reductions, Oct 31 - Nov. 3 2005, San Diego, California, USA.

Mattner, S.W., Gregorio, R., Ren Y. L., Hyland T.W., Gounder, R.K., Sarwar, M. and Porter, I.J. (2003).

Application techniques influence the efficacy of etha nedinitrile (C2N2) for soil disinfestation. Annual

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromid e Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Nov. 3-6,

2003, San Diego, Californi a, USA. pp. 127.1-127.4.

MBTOC. (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of the Meth yl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP,

Nairobi. 468pp.

MBTOC (1998). 1998 Assessment Report of the Methyl Brom ide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi.

MBTOC (1994). 1994 Assessment Report of the Methyl Brom ide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi.

McKenry, M.V., Buzo, T., Kaku, S. and Ashcroft, R. (1999). First-year nematode control and tree growth using

treatments appropriate fo r buffer zones. In: Annual Internati onal Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emi ssions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA. Paper 42.

Melero-Vara, J.M., López-Herrera, C.J., Basallote-Ureba, M.J., Navas, J.A., López, M., Vela, M.D., González, L.,

Moraza, R. and Prados-Ligero, A.M. (2005). Physical and chemical methods of controlling fusarium wilt

of carnation as alternatives to methyl br omide treatments. Acta Hort 698: 175 – 180.

Melgarejo, P., De Cal, A., Salto, T., Martinez-Beringola, M. L., Martinez-Tr eceno, A., Bardon, E., Palacios, J.,

Becerril, M., Medina, J. J., Galvez, J., and Lopez-Ar anda, J. M. (2001). Three Years of Results on

Chemical Alternatives To Methyl Bromide For Strawberry Nurs eries in Spain. In: Annual International

Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives a nd Emissions Reduction 2001. November 5 - 9,

2001, San Diego, Califor nia, USA. pp. 93-1.

Minuto, A., Garibaldi, A. and Gullino, M. L. (2003). Chemical altern atives to Methyl Bromid e in Italy: an update.

Pp. 22-1 – 22-4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and

Emission Reductions, November 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 91 Muckenfuss, A. (2005). Basamid G for weed control in fo rest tree nurseries. In: Annual International Research

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives an d Emission Reductions, Oc t 31 - Nov. 3 2005, San

Diego, California, USA. Pp 43-1 – 43-4

Mutitu, E and Barel, M. (2003). Examples of MB altern atives used in commercia l practice. Stakeholders

Workshop on Methyl bromide, February 2003. Nairobi, Kenya.

Navas Becerra, J.A., Melero-Vara, J.M. and Prados- Ligero, A.M. (2002). Methyl bromide alternatives for cutflowers production in Chipiona. In: Proceedings of In ternational Conference on Alternatives to Methyl

Bromide. March 5-8 2002, Sevilla, Spain

Navarro. S., Finkelman S., Rinder M. an d R. Dias. (2005). Heat treatment for disinfestations of Nitidulid beetles

from dates. Department of Food Scie nce, Agricultural Research Organi zation, the Volcani Center, P. O.

Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel

Nelson, M., Rodriguez, L., Vander Me y, B., Lepez, G. and Norton, J. (2002). Results from the 2001-02 USDA IR4 MBA Field Trials in California St rawberries. In: Annual Internationa l Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissi ons Reductions, Nov. 3 – 6, 2003 Orlando, Florida, USA.. pp.16/1-

16/4.

Nelson M. et al. (2001a). Ma rketable berry yield cv. Camarosa – Oxna rd trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR-4 Methyl

Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries.

Nelson M. et al. (2001b). Marketable be rry yield cv. Diamante – Salinas tr ial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR-4 Methyl

Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries.

Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. (2004). Use of virtually impermeable plasti c mulches (VIF) in Florida

strawberry. In: Annual International Research C onference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and

Emissions Reductions, November 3-6, 2004 , Orlando, Florida, USA. pp. 1-1.

Noling, J. W., Gilreath, J. P. and Rosskopf, E. R. (2001). Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Field Research Efforts

For Nematode Control in Florida. In: Annual Inte rnational Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reducti ons , 5-9 November, 2001, San Di ego, California, USA. pp. 14-1.

Norman, C.S. (2005). Poten tial impacts of imposing methyl bromide pha seout on US strawberry growers: a case

study of a nomination for a critical use exemption under the Montreal Protocol. J. Environm. Mgmt. 75:

167-176

Peguero, A. (2004). Use of Agrocelhone in cut flower production in southern Sp ain. In: Proceedings of

International Conference on Altern atives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon, Portugal.

Pietr, S.J., Slusarski, C. an d Lewicka, T. (2002). Methyl bromide alternat ives evaluated in strawberry production in

UNEP’s regional demonstration project in central and eastern Europe. In: Proceedings of th International

Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Br omide, March 5-8, 2002, Seville, Spain.

Pizano, M. 2005. Worldwide trends in substrate use. FloraCulture Inte rnational, March 2005, p. 20 – 21.

Porter, I.J., Trinder, L. and Partingt on, D. (2006). Special Report Validating th e Yield Performance of Alternatives

to Methyl Bromide for Preplant fumigation. TEAP/MBTOC Special Repor t, UNEP Nairobi, May 2006

97pp.

Porter I.J, Mattner, S., Gounder, R., Mann, R., Banks, J. and Fraser, P. (2004). Strawberry fruit production:

summaries of alternatives to methyl bromide fumiga tion and trials in different geographic regions. In:

Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004.

Lisbon, Portugal.

Porter, I., Brett, R., Wiseman, B., and Rae, J. (1997). Me thyl bromide for preplant soil disinfestation in temperate

horticultural crops in Australia in perspective. In : Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-5 November, 1997, San Diego, California USA.

Rabasse, J.M. (2004). Improved techniques for the application of metham sodi um. In: Proceedings of International

Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Brom ide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon, Portugal.

Reuven, M., Ben-Yephet, Y., Sznulewich, Y., Kolesnik, I. Gamliel, A. Zilber g, V. Mor, M and Cahlon, Y. (2002).

Control of Fusarium and root-knot nematodes in carna tions using steam and chemicals. In: International

Workshop on Methyl Bromide Compliance Assistance. Dec 8 - 13, 2002, Israel.

Reuven, M., Szmulewich, Y. Ko lesnik, I. Gamliel, A. Zilberg, V. Mor, M. Cahlon, Y. and Ben-Yephet, Y. (2005).

Methyl bromide alternatives for controlling fusarium wilt and root knot nematodes in carnations. Acta

Hort 698: 99 – 104

Runia, W.T. and Molendijk, L.P.G. ( 2006). Improved efficacy of metam sodium by rotary spading injection.

Wageningen University and Research Center, Lelystad. 16pp.

# 92 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report Sachs Y. (2002). Vegetable industry: Recommendations for us e of Methyl Bromide altern atives and gaps in knowhow. In: International Methyl Bromide Complian ce workshop, Isr ael, December 8-13, 2002, p. 51.

Santos, B.M., Gilreath, J.P. and Motis , T.N. (2005). Managing nutsedge a nd stunt nematode in pepper with

reduced methyl bromide plus chloropicrin rates u nder virtually impermeable films. HortTechnology.

15(3): 596-599.

Savvas, D. and Passam, H. (eds) (2002). Hydropo nic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals

. Embryo

Publications, Athens.

Savvas, D. (2003). Hydroponics: A modern technology supporting the applicatio n of integrated crop management

in greenhouse. Food, Agriculture and Environment 1 (1): 80 – 86.

Smith, I.W., Dunez, J., Lelliot, R.A. , Phillips, D.H. and Archer, S.A. (1998). In: European Handbook of Plant

Diseases. Blackwell Scient ific Publications, Oxford, UK. Pp 200 – 202

Sonneveld, (2002). Composition of nutritional so lution. In: Savvas D and Passam H (eds) 2002. Hydroponic

Production of Vegetabl es and Ornamentals

. Embryo Publications, Athens pp 179 - 210.

Spotti, C. (2004). The use of fumigants and grafted plants as alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the production of

tomatoes and vegetables in Italy. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl

Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon, Portugal.

Sydorovych, O., Safley, C.D., Ferguson, L.M., Poling, E.B., Fe rnandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M., Monks, D.M. and

Louws, F.J. (2006) Economic evaluation fo me thyl bromide alternatives for the production of

strawberries in the Southeastern Unite d States. HortTechnology 16, 118-128.

Sydorovych, O., Safley, C.D., Poling, E. B., Ferguson, L. M. , Fernandez, G.E. , Brannen, P.M. and Lows, F.J.

(2004). Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alte rnatives for strawberry production. In: Annual

International Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 3-6

November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Tognoni F, Incorcci, L., and Pardossi, A. (2004). Use of substrates for in tensive production of vegetables in

Europe and Mediterranean regions. In: Proceedings of fifth International conference on Alternatives to

Methyl Bromide, 27-30 September, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal pp.177-181.

Tostovrsnik, N.S., Shanks, A.L. Porter , I.J. Mattner, S.W, a nd Brett, R.W. (2005). Facilitating the adoption of

alternatives to methyl bromide in Australian horticulture. Pp 13- 1 – 13/4 In: Annual International

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternativ es and Emissions Reductions 31 Oct -3 November

2005, San Diego, California, USA.

Tribulato, A. and Noto, G. (2001). Forcing oriental and as iatic lilies in soilless cult ure. Acta Hort. 559: 639-645.

Trout, T., Schneider, S., Ajwa,, H. and Gartung, J. (2003). Fumigation and fallowi ng effects on replant problems in

California.In: Annual International Research Conferen ce on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions

Reductions, 3-6 November, 2003, Sa n Diego, California, USA.

Unger, W., Reichmuth, Ch. Unger, A. and Detrmers, H.B.. (1992). Zu r Bekämpfung des Echten Hausschwamms

( Serpula lacrymans [WULF.: FR.] SCHROET.) in Kultur gütern mit Brommethan [Contol of Serpula

lacrymans in artefacts with methyl bromide]. Zeit schrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 6,

244-259.

Unruh, J.B., Brecke, J.B. Dusky, J.A. and Godehere, J.S. (2002). Fumigant alternatives for methyl bromide prior

to turfgrass establishment. Weed Technology 16: 379 – 387.

Unruh, J.B. and Brecke, B.J. (2001). Seeking alternativ es for methyl bromide. Golf Course Management 69(3): 65

– 72.

Urrestarazu, M. (2004). Tratado de cultivo sin suelo Mundi Prensa Libros, España, 928 pp. 3 Ed.

UNEP (2003). Report of the Technology and Economic Asse ssment Panel, October 2003. Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Un ited Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

UNEP (2004). Report of the Technology and Economic Asse ssment Panel, October 2004. Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Un ited Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

UNEP (2005a). Report of the Technology and Economic A ssessment Panel, May 2005. Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Un ited Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

UNEP (2005b). Report of the Technology and Economic A ssessment Panel, May 2005 Interim Report (Section

III). Montreal Protocol on Substa nces that Deplete the Ozone Laye r, United Nations Environment

Programme, Nairobi.

UNEP (2005c) Report of the Technology and Economic Asse ssment Panel, October 2005. Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Un ited Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 93 UNEP (2006). Report of the Technology and Economic A ssessment Panel, May, 2006. Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Un ited Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Wang D., Yates S.R., Ernst F. F., Gan J. and Jury W.A. (1997). Reducing methyl bromide emission with a high

barrier plastic film and reduced dosage. Envi ronmental Science and Technology 31, 3686-3691.

Watson, C. W., Szemjonneck, W., Prut hi, N., Bureau, D. and Varnava, A. (2002). New developments in the

fumigation of bulk and bagged goods in-transit. In : Donahaye, E. J., Navarro, S., Leesch, J. (eds),

Proceedings of the International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored

Products, Fresno, California, October 2000, Vol. I, 439-453.

Yates, S.R. (2004). Reducing bystander exposure by em ission reduction. In: Annual International Research

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Nov 3 – 6, 2004, Orlando,

Florida, USA.

Yates, S.R,, Gan, F. and Er nst, E.F. (1996a). Methyl bromide emissions from a covere d field: I. Experimental

conditions and degradation in soil. J. Environment. Qual. 25(1): 184 – 192

Yates, S.R,, Gan, F. and Er nst, E.F. (1996b). Methyl bromide emissions from a covered field: I. Volatilization. J.

Environment. Qual. 25(1): 192 - 202

Yücel, I.H., Elekçio ğ lu, A. and Uluda ğ , A. (2002). Solarization and its combin ations: the first year results of a

demonstration project. In: Proceed ings of the International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl

Bromide, 5 – 8 March, 2002, Seville, Spain.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 95 

# 3. MBTOC Work plan 2006, Budget 2007

3.1 Introduction

The Parties, at their Sixteenth Meeting, decide d to adopt the elements related to procedures

and terms of reference of the Methyl Br omide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)

related to the evaluation of nominations for cr itical uses of methyl bromide as set out in

Annex I to the report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties (16MOP) (Decision XVI/4).

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP states that an annual work plan should be

drawn up by MBTOC (supported by the Ozone S ecretariat) in consultation with TEAP and

that MBTOC should submit it to the Meeting of the Parties each year.

In accordance with paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP, MBTOC has prepared

its 2007 work plan in consultation with TEAP and with support of the Ozone Secretariat. The

work plan is contained in section 3 of the curre nt document for consideration by the Parties at

their Eighteenth Meeting.

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP also specifies that a summary report of

MBTOC activities over the previous year (parag raph 15(h)) should also be indicated in the

MBTOC plan. In accordance with this requi rement, the summary report is provided in

section 4 of the current document.



# 3.2 Allocation of the Funds under Decision XVI/5

The Parties, at their Seventeenth Meeting, included in the approved Secretariat budget for

2006 a maximum amount of US$34,150, on an exceptional basis, to cover the costs of expert

assistance to MBTOC as supplemental funding. S ection 5 of the current document provides a

detailed report on how the supplemental funds we re allocated to MBTO C activities. The

report on allocation of the funds was prepared in pursuance of the fundamental principle

adopted by the Parties of ensuring transpar ency in the process of assessing critical use

nominations.



# 3.3 MBTOC Work plan for 2007 - Details

Paragraph 1 of Annex I to the report of 16 MOP provides the schedule for the MBTOC

assessment of critical-use exemptions. In accordance with the schedule, MBTOC envisages

its activities in 2007 as set out in Table 1 below. The elements of the work plan as specified

under paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP have been incorporated. The schedule

of the work to be carried out by MBTOC on the MBTOC composition is also included. The

list of current membership of MBTOC is cont ained in Annex I to the current document.

The work plan also includes an indicative budge t for the activities in 2007, which are related

to evaluation of CUNs. Although Parties had i ndicated in the 2006 approved budget that 2006

is the last year for providing supplemental f unding to MBTOC, such financial assistance is

needed to ensure the effective operation of MB TOC in continuing to carry out the evaluation

of CUNs. In particular, some funding fo r non-Article 5 MBTOC members is strongly

recommended; most non-Article 5 members do not have funding to attend meetings. As

mentioned in the 2006 work plan of MBTOC contained in the Final CUN report of last year

(Report of the Technology and Economic Ass essment Panel, October 2005: Evaluation of

2005 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Brom ide and Related Matters, Final Report) the

financial burden on individual members and/ or their research institutions has become

unsustainable due to the increased workload and numb er of meetings resulting from the CUN

# 96 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# process. In addition, the requirement for MBTO C reports to more clearly and completely

reference the reasons for decision making under the circumstances of particular nominations

strengthens the need for field trips to aff ected regions, for occasional consultation with

experts on particular topics, for reports summari zing particularly complex issues, and to cover

the costs of obtaining reference documents. Th e Parties may wish to consider these issues.

Table 10. MBTOC work plan and indicative budget

Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs

where applicable Indicative

completion date Dates of

meetings

Assessment of the CUNs

1. Parties submit their nominations for critical-use

exemptions to the Secretariat - 24 January 2007

2. The nominations are forwarded to MBTOC cochairs for distribution to the subgroups of appointed

members - 7 February 2007

3. Initial summarization of the nominations -

4. Nominations in full are assessed by the

subgroups of appointed members. The initial

findings of the subgroups, and any requests for

additional information are forwarded to the MBTOC

co-chairs for clearance Funds for assistance in

technical analysis, report

preparation, field tours and

reference docs (throughout

the process as necessary):

US$ 10,000

5. MBTOC co-chairs forward the cleared advice

on initial findings and may request additional

information on to the nom inating Party concerned

and consult with the Party on the possible

presumption therein - 21 February 2007

6. Nominating Party devel ops and submits its

response to the MBTOC co-chairs - 7 March

7. MBTOC Meeting No 1 to assess nominations,

including any additional in formation provided by the

nominating Party prior to the MBTOC meeting

under action 5 and any a dditional information

provided by nominating Party through pre-arranged

teleconference, or through meetings w ith national

experts, in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of the

terms of reference of TEAP Funds for travel of 3 non-A5

members: US$10,000*

Meeting Costs $6,000

(Non A5 Co-chairs funded

separately)* 19-23 March 19 – 23 March,

2007, Torino,

Italy

8. Field missions by selected MBTOC members

to some key sites where methyl bromide is used as

per nominations. Funds for travel:

US$6,000 18 or 24 March, 2007

9. MBTOC provides its draft recommendations

on the CUNs to TEAP 27 March, 2007

10. TEAP Meeting: To assess the MBTOC report

on critical-use nominations and submits the finalised

interim report on recommenda tions and findings to

the Secretariat. Funds for travel of 1 non-A5

member: US$ 5,000*

(Non A5 Co-Chairs funded

separately)* 27 – 30 March,

2007, Rome, Italy

11. The Secretariat posts the finalised report on its

web site and circulates it to the Parties - 23 April, 2007

12. OEWG Bilateral Discussions: Nominating

Party has the opportunity to consult with MBTOC

on a bilateral basis in conjunction with the Openended Working Group meetings 4-8 June 2007

13. The nominating Party submits further

clarification for the critical-use nomination in the

“unable to assess” category or if requested to do so

by the Open-ended Working Group, and provides

additional information should it wish to appeal

against a critical-use nomination recommendation

by MBTOC/TEAP - Early July 2007

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 97 Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs

where applicable Indicative

completion date Dates of

meetings

14. MBTOC Meeting No 2:

• reassess only those critic al-use nominations in

the “unable to assess” category, those where

additional information has been submitted by the

nominating Party and any cr itical-use nominations

for which additional inform ation has been requested

by the Open-ended Working Group

• finalise the report, including notice of any

proposed new standard pres umptions to be applied

by MBTOC

• conduct any bilateral c onsultations requested

by Parties

• draft work plan and budget for MBTOC for

2007 Funds for travel of 3 non-A5

members: US$12,000

Meeting costs: $US 6000.

(Non A5 Co-Chairs funded

separately)* Mid July 2007 Tentative: 16 –

20 July, 2006,

possible venue

Brazil

15. MBTOC draft final report considered by

TEAP, finalised and made available to Parties

through the Secretariat - End July, 2007

16. Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties 17-21 September

2007

Total budget: US$47,000.

Meeting Costs $12,000

covered separately

Composition of MBTOC

17. At the MBTOC meeting on the assessment of

nominations, MBTOC will al so update the list of

members and their exper tise and decide on missing

expertise. The list a nd missing expertise to be

submitted to the Secretariat. Updated list attached

separately .............

18. The Secretariat will update on its website the

list of members and their expertise as well as the

information on ‘experts required for TEAP and its

TOCs’. ...............

• The costs of the 2 non-Article 5 Co-Chairs are expected to be covered by support of Canada and the European

Commission.



# 3.4 Summary Report of the Activities Carried out by MBTOC in 2006

• 

# Initial summarization of the CUNs (initial sorting and recording carried out by

the Secretariat).

• 

# Preparation of questions for Parties.

• 

# First meeting of MBTOC on the assessment of the CUNs – Dubrovnik, Croatia 3-

8 April 2006. Interim recommendations and report prepared for the Parties.

• 

# Welcomed new member from Spain, and departures of members from the

Philippines, from Malaysia and from Italy

• 

# Progress report drafting after the April meeting.

• 

# TEAP meeting – Beijing, 23-28 April 2005.

• 

# Issuance of the interim report for consideration by the OEWG as part of 2006

TEAP Progress report.

• 

# Completion of the meta-analysis report and its review and endorsement by TEAP.

Issuance of the report as a special report of TEAP.

• 

# 26OEWG (Montreal, 3 – 6 July 2006). Bila teral meetings with Australia, Japan,

European Commission, Spain, Poland, Italy, USA, US Food Processing and

Agriculture Industry members.

• 

# Second MBTOC meeting for evaluation of CUNs that had been classified as

“Unable to assess” at previous meeting and preparation of MBTOC Assessment

Report – Yokohama, Japan August 28 – September 2, 2006.

# 98 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# • 

# Visit by 6 MBTOC members to Canadian pasta manufacturing facility to review

pest control issues.

• 

# Visits by 9 MBTOC members to Kumamoto ginger production sites on August

27 and by all MBTOC members to Ibar agi and Chiba strawberry and pepper

production sites on August 30. To review the current production characteristics

including alternatives, research and i ndustry issues with these alternatives.

• 

# Updated Matrix of MB alternatives for soils

• 

# Preparation of the first draft of the MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report in

accordance with decision XV/53 and pursuant to Article 6 of the Montreal

Protocol. The report will be finalised by December 31 st 

# , 2006



# 3.5 Allocation of the Funds provided under the 2006 budget approved at

the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties

Parties decided to provide MBTOC with fina ncial assistance on an exceptional basis for 2006

as supplemental funds for the maximum sum of $34,150. The funds were allocated for

activities related to evaluation of critical use nominations as follows:

• 

# Further work on the referencing, and presentation of data from the TEAP Special

Report : US$16,000

• 

# Yokohama meeting (MBTOC second meeting) organization: US$1,600

• 

# Bus transport for the field trips in Japan (Ibaragi, Chiba and Kumamoto):

US$2,000

• 

# Dubrovnik meeting costs $5,977.50 (Funds supplied by UNEP)

• 

# Financial support for 2 non-Article 5 e xperts for the Dubrovnik meeting (first

MBTOC meeting): US $6,871

• 

# Financial support for 2 non-Article 5 e xperts for the Yokohama field trip: US

$2,533.

• 

# Financial support for one non A5 MB TOC member to attend the Yokohama

meeting: US $5,094.

TOTAL: US $34,098

Note: Field missions to food processing sites in the US were cancelled due to lack of funds.



# The actual certified expenditure against the a llocations will only become available after the

closing of 2006 accounts in March 2007. This is a provisional report of information that has

already been recorded in th e UN integrated management information system (IMIS).



# 3.6 Management and Personnel Issues

Annex II lists MBTOC members, country, work affiliation and expertise. MBTOC members

represent an impressive scope and depth of experience and ability; MBTOC has members

from 24 countries. More than new members, MB TOC needs to have its members funded to

attend meetings, and able to commit to contri buting to the work of MBTOC outside of the

meetings. Most members have been appointed by Parties, yet it is a constant struggle for

many members to obtain sufficient funding to a ttend all MBTOC meetings, and even more so

to be funded to spend the time nec essary to accomplish the heavy workload.

The response of the Parties to MBTOC’s indica tive budget will, more than anything, clarify

MBTOC’s membership needs. Without funding to attend meetings, many current non-A5

MBTOC members will be unable to attend. If there is to be no change in the funding

situation, MBTOC may need to replace several of its members; the loss of that many

experienced members would threaten both th e best completion of CUN decisions and the

excellence of the Assessment report.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 99 MBTOC continues to search for well-qualified me mbers, particularly from Article 5 countries

and countries with economies in tran sition (CEIT), with expertise in:

- Weed control, in crops that generate critical use nominations

- Replant disease

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 101 

# 4. Recapture of methyl bromide – information provided under

Decision XVII/11.

4.1 Introduction

The text of Decision XVII/11 reads:

“1. To encourage Parties who have deployed in the past, currently deploy or plan to

deploy technologies to recapture/recycle/dest roy or reduce methyl bromide emissions

from fixed facilities or sea container fu migation applications to submit to the

Technology and Economic Asses sment Panel details of efficacy, including destruction

and removal efficiency (DRE), logistical i ssues and the economic feasibility of such

fumigations, by 1 April 2006;

2. To encourage Parties to report on any harmful by-products created using such

technologies;

3. To adopt the form annexed to this decision for the purpose of submitting data;

4. To include the findings of data subm itted in the 2006 progress report of the

Technology and Economic Assessment P anel and summarize Parties’ positive and

negative past experiences of recove ry and destruction technologies;”.

Two Parties, Australia and the US, provided details of methyl bromide recapture and

destruction systems in response to Decision XVI I/11. The form referred to in Decision

XVII/11(3) was used as requested to provide a summary of the data. The submissions are

given in Annex 1 and 2 below.

Two other Parties, Belgium and Poland, gave information to MBTOC on recapture system

under development. However, these were not in response to Decision XVII/11 and were not

in a form suitable for inclusion in this repor t. Recapture, recycling and destruction systems

will be specifically discussed in the MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report.



# 4.2 Background and definitions

Methyl bromide, a short-lived and potent ozone-dep leting substance, is used in fumigations as

a biocide. While it is subject to controls on production and consumption in Article 5(1)

countries and has been subject to 100% phaseout in non-Article 5 countries since 2005, there

continue to be some uses of the fumigant . These are the remaining uses in Article 5(1)

countries, critical uses in non-Article 5 countri es under Decision IX/6, and uses falling within

the category of ‘Quarantine and Pre-Shipment ’ (QPS) that are exempt from phaseout under

Article 2H.

Most QPS and other postharvest uses are, or s hould be, carried out in well-sealed enclosures.

At present, it is common practice to vent the residual methyl bromide to atmosphere. The

proportion of the initial fumigant charge of methyl bromide remaining as methyl bromide

varies widely with circumstances, environmen tal effects and the fumigated commodity. The

Task force on Collection, Recovery and Storage (TEAP 2002) estimated that emissions of

9,300 – 11,535 tonnes of methyl bromide could be prevented, on the basis of 70% of methyl

bromide being available for recapture on average from QPS and other commodity

fumigations, based on 1998 data. The present situ ation with regard to amount of MB that is

available to be captured and destroyed is not clear. MB use for post-harvest has declined

significantly over the last few years in non A5 countries, but increased trade and quarantine

# 102 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# officials’ emphasis on stopping the spread of exotic wood-destroying insect pests, such as

ISPM 15, may have led to increased use of MB for QPS. The situation will only become

clear when accurate numbers for QPS use are known.

For QPS treatments, Decisions VII/5(c) and XI/13(7) urge Parties to minimize use and

emissions of methyl bromide through containm ent and recovery and recycling methodologies

to the extent possible. At this point, ther e has been very limited adoption of recovery

technologies for methyl bromide. Initially, recap ture systems were installed in response to

local air quality ordinances. In the absence of regulations, companies reported they would not

invest in the systems, because their competitors would then have a cost advantage. Lately,

some regions have begun requiring the use of recapture systems as a means of ozone

protection as well as local air quality.

Technically, the recapture and destruction of methyl bromide from fumigations has

similarities with the recapture and destruction of CFCs from foams. Both are dilute sources.

Both suffer losses between their application or discharge from the concentrated supply to the

time where recapture may be carried out in pr actice. In one key aspect recapture of used

methyl bromide is much less difficult than recap ture from used foams. Used methyl bromide

is held in the sealed fumigation chamber ready for convenient recapture ; used foams have to

be gathered and transported to a r ecapture or destruction facility.

The efficiency of recapture/destruction can be described in several wa ys. For dilute methyl

bromide sources, the same general concepts ma y be applied as for dilute CFC sources. These

are the overall Destruction Efficiency (DE), th e Recovery and Destruction Efficiency (RDE)

and the Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE). Decision XVII/11 specifically requests

information on DRE. These various measures of e fficiency of destruction, and thus ozone

protection, are defined (TEAP 2002, 2005) thus:



# • Destruction Efficiency (DE) is determined by subtracting from the mass of a chemical

fed into a destruction system during a specific period of time the mass of that

chemical that is released in stack gases, fly ash, scrubber water, bottom ash, and any

other system residues and expressing that difference as a percentage of the mass of

the chemical fed into the system.



# • Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) has traditionally been determined by

subtracting from the mass of a chemical fed into a destruction system during a

specific period of time the mass of that chem ical alone that is released in stack gases,

and expressing that difference as a percentage of the mass of that chemical fed into

the system.



# • Recovery and Destruction Efficiency (RDE) is given by the quantity of the chemical

destroyed in the destruction system as a percen tage of that present in situ prior to the

start of the destruction system. This measure includes losses in segregation,

decommissioning, mechanical recovery and incineration or other destruction process.

With specific regard to methyl bromide from fumigation, the DRE is a measure of the

recapture/destruction process itself, while the DE is a measure of the complete process. The

DE includes losses from leakage and reaction on the commodity, as well as inefficiencies in

removing the substance (methyl bromide) from the fumigation enclosure for input to the

recapture/destruction system. Leakage losses will be emissions to the atmosphere and thus

ODS emissions not controlled by a destruction process. These are typically regulated by best

fumigation practice, including good sealing of the enclosure, good dosing procedures and

minimizing recirculation pressures induced by recirculation fans.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 103 4.3 Submissions under XVII/11

4.3.1 Summary of submissions

Two submissions were received under Decisi on XVII/11 – from Australia and from the US.

Reformatted versions of these submissions are given in Annex 1 and 2 respectively.

The submission from Australia described commercial operation of a recapture/destruction

system based on sorption on to activated carbon, followed by destruction of the sorbed methyl

bromide using an aqueous thiosulphate wash. Th e submission from the US gave data for three

systems: a carbon-based absorption system, a wet scrubber using thiosulphate and a zeolitebased sorption system. The carbon- based destruction system is in commercial use. After use

at the fumigation site, the methyl bromide-load ed carbon is transported to a central site for

incineration. The wet scrubbing destruction system is still under development, while the

zeolite system is no longer in use, though several full-scale prototypes were constructed and

tested. The zeolite system was specifically d esigned to allow recycling of recaptured methyl

bromide – all others are destruction systems only, though in principle the carbon-based

systems could be adapted to release sorbed methyl bromide for reuse.

A summary of the submissions is given in Table 1. Values as given or calculated from the

submissions.

Table 11. Operating efficiencies and costs per kg of methyl bromide destroyed for systems submitted

under Decision XVII/11 – summary.

Party System Operating

principle DRE

(%) DE

(%) Cost

($US/kg

destroyed) Projected cost

($US/kg destroyed)

(a)

Australia Nordiko

Chamber Carbon

absorption (b) >99.9 71-

77 21-24 11-12

Australia Nordiko Clip

on Carbon

absorption (b) >99.9 61-

69 28-30 15-17

Australia Nordiko

Under Tarp Carbon

absorption (b) >99.8 58-

75 5.8-7.6 3.2-4.2

USA MBECp Carbon

absorption (c) 95 94 31.84 -

USA Value

Recovery Thiosulphate

scrubbing 88 87 - -

(a) Likely costs given fo r widespread adoption

(b) Subsequent MB destruction by thiosulpha te wash with regeneration of the carbon

(c) Subsequent destruction by com bustion of the MB-loaded carbon.



# 4.3.2 Comment on recapture and destruction performance

The DRE figures given in the submissions are all quite high (>88%). However the DREs for

the carbon-based systems, at least, are based on the assumption that the destruction system

used, thiosulphate washing or incineration, is 10 0% efficient and that there are no inadvertent

losses during the destruction process. Measureme nts in support of this assumption were not

supplied.

In the Australian system the calculated DE va lues are quite low, on average suggesting losses

of about 30% of the methyl bromide prior to entry into the recapture/destruction system. The

losses appear to be independent of the commod ity treated and enclosure used, suggesting a

systematic cause of this loss. This may need investigation to achieve overall better recapture

# 104 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# of applied methyl bromide, but does not in fluence the DRE of the recapture/destruction

system itself.

None of the submissions described any toxi c byproducts arising from the destruction

processes.



# 4.4 Conclusion

The carbon-based recapture/destruction systems, described herein, have similar DREs, >95%,

to the destruction processes for the only dilute source so far approved by the Parties. These

are municipal waste incineration and rotary k iln incineration for CFCs from foams (Annex II,

Report of 15MOP).

Subject to the constraints on good housekeeping and emissions set out in Annex III and IV of

the Report of 15MOP, appropriately amended to take into account the special chemical and

use features of methyl bromide, Parties may wi sh to consider adding carbon-based recapture/

destruction systems (thiosulphate washing or inci neration) to the list of Approved Destruction

Processes. A stipulation that the processes must achieve a DRE of >95% would be consistent

with restrictions on Approved Destructio n Processes for dilute ODS sources from foams.

Thiosulphate-based wet scrubbing is still unde r development and it may be appropriate to

consider the process for Approved Destruction Pr ocesses status when it is routinely capable of

giving a DRE of >95%.



# 4.5 References

TEAP 2002. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. April 2002. Vol. 3. Report of

the Task Force on Collection, Recovery and Storage and the Report of the Task Force on

Destruction Technologies. UNEP: Nairobi.

TEAP 2005. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. May 2005. Vol. 2. Report of

the Task force on Foam End-of –Life Issues. UNEP: Nairobi.

TEAP 2006. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. May 2006. Progress Report.

UNEP: Nairobi.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 105 Appendix I to Chapter 4: Submission of Australia under Decision XVII/11.

Introduction

Australia has employed methyl bromide recapture and destruction technologies at several

locations in Australia.

The use of methyl bromide recapture and d estruction technologies has been implemented

because of occupational health and safety c oncerns associated with methyl bromide

fumigation. As occupational health and safety is substantially regulated by Australia's States

and Territories, the precise nature of control varies across Australia.

Two Australian States (Victoria and Tasmania) have mandated the use of methyl bromide

recapture technology in some circumstances (particularly for container fumigations in

dockyards) on occupational health and safety grounds.

This technology used in Australia gives si gnificant productivity and economic benefits to

users as it permits imported shipping containers to be turned around after fumigation much

faster than would occur if the container w as withheld to permit the methyl bromide to

naturally dissipate to the atmosphere.

In Victoria, containers must be allowed to air for 24 hours after fumigation to ensure that the

methyl bromide used to fumigate the containe r has time to dissipate to safe levels. In New

South Wales, the requirement is for containers to be aired for six hours. Other Australian

States and Territories generally require about six to 12 hours airing until fumigated containers

may be handled. In contrast, extracting and dest roying methyl bromide from containers after

fumigation significantly reduces this time to around one hour.

The reduced turn around time means that im porters can access their goods on the same day

that the fumigation is concluded. It also mean s that fumigators can use the fumigation pad for

a subsequent treatment much sooner when compar ed to a site that has a container airing.

Recapture technology also avoids the problem of fumigant pooling around containers well

after a fumigation has been conducted. Inciden ces like this can have significant occupational

health and safety impacts on dock workers.

These benefits provide an economic incentive fo r importers and fumigators to use recapture

technology in preference to traditional fumigati on where the methyl bromide is permitted to

vent to the atmosphere.

The attached papers contain detailed informa tion on the cost and amount of methyl bromide

recaptured from fumigations using recapture and destruction technology.106September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportSubmission Form for Methyl Bromide RecaptureDate of test January 2006 20 February 2006 21 February 2006 23 February 2006A Recapture or destruction system used: Nordiko Chamber Nordiko Chamber Nordiko Chamber Nordiko ChamberB Location: Raymond Terrace, NSW Raymond Terrace,NSWRaymond Terrace, NSW Raymond Terrace,NSWC Submitting body Nordiko Nordiko Nordiko NordikoD Commodity Treated TimberTimber Timber TimberE Fumigation contents and volume: 3.3 m3 3.4 m3 3.06 m3 3.06 m3F Chamber or tent volume: 38.2m3 38.2 m3 38.2 m3 38.2 m3G Percentage loading of chamber: 9% 9.00% 8.00% 8.00%H Gas quantity retained by the recapture ordestruction system:1870.93 g 1772.1 g 1827.76 g 1916.15 gI Quantity lost during the fumigation byleakage or reaction:629 g 727.5 g 671.5 g 582.36 gJ Residual free gas left in the enclosure afterextraction of methyl bromide into therecapture system:0.5 ppm 2.6 ppm 5 ppm 10 ppmK Remaining sorbed gas (taking into accountany gas naturally present prior tofumigation):0.5 ppm 2.6 ppm 5 ppm 10 ppmL Quantity of gas transiting therecapture/destruction system and lost byleaks in the system:Negligible leaks Negligible leaks Negligible leaks Negligible leaksM Measurement of gas exhausted afterrecapture stopped:0.07 g 0.39 g 0.74 g 1.49 gN Total gas present in the fumigated system atstart of recapture:1871 g 1772.5 g 1828.5 g 1917.64 gO Net efficiency of recapture: 99.99% 99.97% 99.95% 99.92%P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed (US$): Seenote below(a) $22.52(b) 11.26(a) 21.99(b) $10.99(a) 23.06(b) 11.53(a) 23.78(b) 11.89September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report107Date of test 13 January 2006 16 January 2006 17 January 2006A Recapture or destruction system used: Nordiko Clip on Nordiko Clipon Nordiko Clip onB Location: Tasmania Tasmania TasmaniaC Submitting body Nordiko Nordiko NordikoD Commodity Treated Yarn Yarn YarnE Fumigation contents and volume: 30 m3 30 m3 30 m3F Chamber or tent volume: 33 m3 33 m3 33 m3G Percentage loading of chamber: 90% 9.00% 8.00%H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or destructionsystem:1199.49 g 1249.23 g 1099.36 gI Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage orreaction:600 g 550 g 700 gJ Residual free gas left in the enclosure after extractionof methyl bromide intothe recapture system:4 ppm 6 ppm 5 ppmK Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account any gasnaturally present prior to fumigation):4 ppm 6 ppm 5 ppmL Quantity of gas transiting the recapture/destructionsystem and lost by leaks in the system:Negligible leaks Negligible leaks Negligible leaksM Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture stopped: 0.51g 0.77 g 0.64 gN Total gas present in the fumigated system at start ofrecapture:1200 g 1250 g 1100 gO Net efficiency of recapture: 99.95% 99.93% 99.94%P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed (US$): See notebelow(a) 27.77(b) 15.27(a) 26.66(b)14.67(a) 30.30(b) 16.66108September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final ReportNote: (a) = Actual present usage; (b) = Full utilizationN = Gas concentration (end of fumigation) x FM=J x FH=N – M - LI = Gas injected - N0= H x 100%/ NK=JDate of test 2 January 2006 3 January 2006 4 January 2006 6January 2006A Recapture or destruction system used:Nordiko Under Tarp Nordiko Under TarpNordiko Under Tarp Nordiko Under TarpB Location: Tasmania Tasmania Tasmania TasmaniaC Submitting body Nordiko Nordiko Nordiko NordikoD Commodity Treated Hydro Equipment Hydro Equipment Hydro Equipment Hydro EquipmentE Fumigation contents and volume: 120 m3 120 m3 120 m3 120 m3F Chamber or tent volume: 134 m3 134 m3 134 m3 134 m3G Percentage loading of chamber: 89% 89% 89% 89%H Gas quantity retained by the recapture ordestruction system:4993.74 g 4595.83 g 5794.79 g 5995.3 gI Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage orreaction:3000 g 3400 g 2200 g 2000 gJ Residual free gas left in the enclosure afterextraction of methyl bromide into the recapturesystem:12 ppm 8 ppm 10 ppm 9 ppmK Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account anygas naturally present prior to fumigation):12 ppm 8 ppm 10 ppm 9 ppmL Quantity of gas transiting therecapture/destruction system and lost by leaks inthe system:Negligible leaks Negligible leaks Negligible leaks Negligible leaksM Measurement of gas exhausted after recapturestopped:6.26 g 4.17 g 5.21 g 4.69 gN Total gas present in the fumigated system at startof recapture:5000 g 4600 g 5800 g 6000 gO Net efficiency of recapture: 99.87% 99.90% 99.91% 99.92%P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed (US$): See notebelow(a) 6.96(b) 3.83(a) 7.56(b) 4.16(a) 6.00(b) 3.30(a) 5.79(b) 3.18

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 109 Appendix II to Chapter 4: Submission of the United States of America under

Decision XVII/11.

Voluntary submission of information on the efficacy, logistical issues, and the economic

feasibility of technologies to recapture, recycle, destroy, or reduce methyl bromide emissions

from fixed facilities or sea container fumigation applications.

Introduction

The United States is aware of three technologies that have been used to

recapture/recycle/destroy methyl bromide from st ructural fumigations domestically. The first

technology is currently used in a commerc ial setting and the second has undergone recent

commercial-scale tests. The third technology is no longer in use. Best available data on the

efficiency and cost of these technologies, as requested by Decision XVII/II of the 17th MOP,

are only provided for commercially available technologies.



# •

. Methyl Bromide Emission Control Process (MBECp) - developed by USDAARS, GFK Consulting, and Great Lakes Chem ical Corporation, this methyl bromide

recovery system is currently commerciall y available from Great Lakes, but is in

limited use,



# •

. Phase Transfer Catalysis - this recovery and destruction system is being developed by Value Recovery, Inc. and is not yet commercially available.



# • Bromosorb ® - this recovery and recycling system was developed by Knowzone

Solution, Inc and Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc. and is no longer commercially available.

Decision XVII/11 forms

Table I. Methyl Bromide Emission Control Process 

# :

These performance data were originally reported at the 2005 Annual International Research Conference

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Information Requested

A Recapture or destruction system used Meth yl Bromide Emission Control process (MBECp)

B Location Installed at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport in Texas,

Well-Pict Berries in Watsonville, California, and

Bush International Airport in Houston, Texas

C Submitting body.

(please provide name and e-mail address of

individual to be contacted in the event of a

query)

D Commodity treated Dallas/Fort Worth Airport: acorns, bell peppers,

wood crates, herbs, flowers, pinecones, and ceramic

tiles

Well-Pict Berries : several varieties of berries

fumigated

E Fumigation contents and volume 20.2m 3 a



# F Chamber or tent volume 161.8m 3 a



# G Percentage loading of the chamber 12%

Units Percentage of Total Quantity

Applied (Where Appropriate)

H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or

destruction system 2.14 kg 94%

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage

or reaction 0.04 kg 2%

J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after

extraction of methyl bromide into the

recapture system 0.06 kg 3%

# 110 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account

any gas naturally present prior to fumigation) 0.04 kg b 

# 2% b



# L Quantity of methyl bromide transiting the

recapture/destruction system and lost by leaks

in the system 2.13 kg 95%

M Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture

stopped ~ 500 ppm c



# N Total gas present in the fumigated system at

start of recapture 2.20 kg 98%

O Net efficiency of recapture 95%

P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed $US31.84 per kg recovered

a 

# Knapp (2005) only reported the volume of free space surrounding 40,000 lbs of contents (141.6 m 3 

# ). The bulk

density of 40,000 lbs of strawberries (900 kg/m 3 

# ) was used to estimate the content's volume, chamber volume,

and "Percentage Loading of Chamber." Please note that these values are dependant upon the bulk density of the

commodity.

b 

# It was assumed that the commodity absorbs 2 % of the methyl bromide introduced into the chamber during

fumigation (Knapp, 2005).

c 

# Once the methyl bromide concentration reaches ~500 ppm , the MBECp system is bypassed and methyl bromide

is released directly into the atmosphere. The chamber is aerated until the concentrat ion reaches ~5 ppm. This

results in the atmospheric release of 0.06 kg of methyl bromide, if 2.24 kg is applied during fumigation.

d 

# It is assumed that the quantity of methyl bromide absorbed by the commodity is not released into the atmosphere.



# Table 2. Phase Transfer Catalysis:

These performance data were provided by Value R ecovery. Comments clarifyi ng how each value was

estimated are presented in Attachment B.

The testing conducted by Value Recovery involved the fumigation of solid wood packaging with 4.745

kg of methyl bromide introduced into a 76.46 m 3 

# chamber. As shown, the Value Recovery system is

able to absorb and recapture 4.141 kg of the 4.745 kg of methyl bromide initially introduced into the

chamber (about 87%). Approximately 0.577 kg of th e methyl bromide applied is released into the

atmosphere (about 12%) through leaks in the fumigation and recapture systems and venting of any

residual gas left. in the fumigation chamber after r ecapture stops. The net efficiency of recapture is

estimated to be 88%, where net efficiency is equa l to the amount of methyl bromide captured by the

MBECp system divided by the total amount of methyl bromide remaining in the fumigation system at

the start of recapture.

Although the purveyor of this scrubber system was ab le to share cost estimates with the U.S., the Party

had no means to verify this information as the technology is not yet commercially available.

Information Requested

A Recapture or destruction system us ed Methyl Bromide Scrubber System

B Location Value Recovery, Inc. is located in

Bridgeport, NJ

C Submitting body.

(please provide name and e-mail address of

individual to be contacted in the event of a query)

D Commodity treated Solid Wood Packaging

E Fumigation contents and volume 22.94m 3



# F Chamber or tent volume 76.46 m 3



# G Percentage loading of the chamber 30%

Units Percentage of Total

Quantity Applied

(Where Appropriate)

H Gas quantity retained by the recapture or

destruction system 4.141 kg 874%

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage or

reaction 0.046 kg 1%

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 111 J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after

extraction of methyl brom ide into the recapture

system 0.106 Kg 2%

K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account any

gas naturally present prior to fumigation) 0.027 kg a 

# 1% a



# L Quantity of methyl bromide transiting the

recapture/destruction system and lost by leaks in

the system 4.566 kg 96%

M Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture

stopped 240 ppm

N Total gas present in the fumigated system at start

of recapture 4.566 kg 98%

O Net efficiency of recapture 88% b



# P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed Not yet in commercial use

a It is assumed that the quantity of methyl bromide absorbed by the commodity is not released into the

atmosphere.

b. This estimate of net efficiency is calculated by dividing th e total amount of methyl bromide retained by the

MBECp system by the total amount of methyl bromide remaining in the fumigation system at the start of

recapture. Two different interpretations of net efficiency were provided by Value Recovery, Inc., and are

presented in Table 3 of Attachment B.



# Background on the Technologies

Methyl Bromide Emission Control Process (MBECp)

The Methyl Bromide Emission Control process (MBECp) was developed and tested under a

Cooperative Research and Development Agreem ent with USDA-ARS) Great Lakes Chemical

Corporation) and GFK Consulting, and is curren tly commercially available. The system uses

coconut-based activated carbon) which can be lo aded with I pound of methyl bromide per 5-

10 pounds of carbon) to remove methyl bromid e during the end-of-treatment venting from

commodity fumigations (ARS, 2001).

During fumigation, a container holding the comm odity is placed in the fumigation chamber

and covered with a tarp. Methyl bromide is th en introduced into the chamber to eliminate

pests. After the fumigation period, the methyl bromide recovery process begins by aerating

the chamber and directing the chamber's air thr ough the MBECp system to collect the methyl

bromide. The system continues to operate until the concentration of methyl bromide in tile

chamber is reduced to ~500 ppm. At this con centration, the system is less efficient at

absorbing methyl bromide, thus the air in the ch amber is directly vented into the atmosphere

until it reaches -5ppm methyl bromide (Knapp, 2005).

Once the activated carbon can no longer absorb additional methyl bromide, it must be

transported to a carbon regeneration facility wher e the absorbed methyl bromide is recovered

and the carbon is reactivated. The recovered methyl bromide is then decomposed into

elemental bromide (Br2) (Knapp, 2005).

A series of tests have been conducted to dete rmine the efficiency and feasibility of the

MBECp system. These tests were held at th e ports of San Pedro, CA, Newark, NJ,

Philadelphia, P A, and Wilmington, DE and at the processing plant of Well-Pict Berries in

WatsonvilIe, CA. Fumigated commodities include d kiwis, brassware, botanicals, lemons,

yams, and strawberries (Knapp et al, 1998). In these tests, initial methyl bromide

concentration ranged between 7,000 ppm and 12,000 ppm. With the MBECp systems in

place, the concentration of methyl bromide that was discharged directly to the atmosphere

was reduced to 500 ppm. Thus, use of the MBECp system reduced the maximum methyl

bromide mass emission rate by 93-96%, thereb y decreasing the environmental concentration

of methyl bromide in the vicinity of the fumi gation site. fu addition to the mass emission rate,

the overall amount of methyl bromide entering the environment was also reduced

significantly (Knapp, McCallister, and Leesch 1998).

# 112 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# The first operational MBECp system was installe d at the International Perishable Treatment

Center in the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) Airport in Dallas, Texas, to improve the rate of cargo

traffic for South American import products, su ch as cut flowers (ARS, 2001 and Great Lakes

Corporation, 1999). Local air regulations prohibit the release of more than 1.11bs of methyl

bromide per hour, so a system was needed to recapture methyl bromide released during

fumigation. The DFW system is designed to recover methyl bromide from an enclosure of up

to 4,500 ft 3 

# in 30 minutes (Great Lakes Corporation, 1999).

Since the installation at DFW Airport, the MBEC p system has been installed at a Well-Pict

Berries facility in Watsonville, California, and at Bush International, Airport in Houston,

Texas. Well-Pict Berries uses the system to recover methyl bromide after the fumigation of

berries; their installation is a relatively simple ve rsion of the MBECp systems-it consists of an

adsorber and a suction fan that keeps the w hole system under a slight negative pressure for

safety reasons, The system installed in Bush Inte rnational Airport is part of a new state-ofthe-art treatment facility, and includes many add itional features, such as redundant adsorbers,

redundant blowers, continuous methyl bromide monitors, plus a data acquisition system

(Knapp 2005). This system was in stalled in 2005 for applications similar to the facility at

DFW, but has not yet begun methyl bromide recovery operations (M cCallister, 2006 and

Russell, 2006).

Phase Transfer Catalysis

Under a Phase I Small Business Innova tive Research grant from the USDA, awarded in 2005,

Value Recovery, Inc. is currently developing a methyl bromide recovery and destruction

technology called Phase Transfer Catalysis.(PTC). This scrubbing system is able to convert

(and thus destroy) methyl bromide (and other alkyl and acyl halides) into a benign salt using

ammonium thiosulfate. The process takes place at low temperatures (~50°C), which prevent

the formation of ozone depleting free radicals that can be associated with high temperature

incineration processes (Value Recovery, Inc., 2006).

Figure 2 in Attachment C shows a visual de piction of the PTC process for recovery and

destruction of methyl bromide. The portable scrubbi ng system consists of a forced air blower

and a scrubber tank. During the recovery/destru ction process, a ventilation fan directs fresh

air into the fumigation chamber, which the fo rced air blower then redirects through the

scrubber tank. In the scrubber tank, methyl bromid e is destroyed, using ammonium thiosulfate

to transform methyl bromide into ammoni um methylthiosulfate (a benign salt) and

ammonium bromide. The system uses infra-red an alyzers to closely monitor inlet and outlet

concentrations of methyl bromide (Value Recovery, Inc., 2006).

Testing data collected thus far indicate that the scrubber system can remove more than 85% of

the methyl bromide in a single pass and more than 99% when a modified, multiple pass

system is used. However, there may be practical and logistical constraints to the multiple pass

system. A successful commercial-scale demonstration at the Port of Wilmington, Delaware

recently took place using the single pass through me thod. In that demonstration, 87% of the

methyl bromide that would have been vented into the atmosphere was destroyed (Value

Recovery, Inc., 2005a). This company is investig ating methods to recover more than 95% of

the methyl bromide in a single pass and is al so examining the potential to recover methyl

bromide from soil fumigations using their scrubber system (Value Recovery, Inc., 2005b).

In addition to developing the recovery/dest ruction system, Value Recovery has conducted

research on converting dilute aqueous waste in to useful commercial products (Bielski and

Joyce, 2003). In particular, testing undertaken by Value Recovery has shown that reacting

methyl bromide with sodium phenolate can produce a 95% yield of anisole. Therefore, if

destroyed methyl bromide can be converted to a valuable end- product, such as anisole, there

may be an economic incentive associated with the use of the PTC technology to recover

methyl bromide (Value Recovery, Inc. 2006).

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 113 Bromosorb®

Bromosorb® was originally deve loped Knowzone, Inc. and Cryo -Line Supplies, Inc., but is

no longer commercially available (Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc., 2006). The system used an

absorbent material called Halozite®, which rem oved methyl bromide as air circulated through

the unit. Since Halozite® has a greater absorben t capacity than carbon, the system was able to

recover methyl bromide at concentrations below 500 ppm. The Bromosorb® system was able

to recapture approximately 95% of the methyl bromide normally released into the atmosphere

after fumigation. In addition, the unique chem ical properties of Halozite® allowed recovered

methyl bromide to be recycled for future fumigations (ARS, 1997).

Initial tests on the efficiency of the Bromosorb® system were conducted in a Chilean fruit

processing plant (ARS, 1997). This testing incl uded four empty chamber fumigations and a

single fumigation with a pallet of fruit. In the four empty chamber test runs, Bromosorb® was

able to reduce the concentration of methyl brom ide in the chamber by 95.5%. In a fifth run,

the methyl bromide concentration was reduced by 94%. The tests were conducted in a

chamber with one pallet of fruit, which did not generate sufficient water vapor or volatile

compounds to determine whether the methyl bromide recovered contained unacceptable

contaminants. During each run, there was a loss of around 1..6 kg of methyl bromide, which

was most likely due to leaks in the connecti on between the chamber and recovery unit (ARS,

1997).

Additional testing was conducted by Metbro T echnologies and Cryo-Line Supplies at a ship

hold at a port facility in Canada. The ship hold's concentration of methyl bromide was

reduced from 22,000 ppm to 390 ppm (99.99% reduction). When the methyl bromide

concentration reached 390 ppm, methyl bromid e was detected in the systems exhaust,

indicating that collectors were full (Weightman, 1999).

In the early 1990s, Halozone installed a Bromosorb® system in the Port of San Diego,

California, in response to public health concerns about the concentration of methyl bromide in

neighborhoods adjacent to the fumigation facility (Allen, 1994). The system was later

removed because the methyl bromide recovered by the system and recycled could not meet

purity standards (Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc., 2006). In addition, the system experienced

technical problems. The recycled gas was highl y corrosive due to the introduction of water

vapor which reacted with the methyl bromide to produce hydrobromic acid in the recycled

material (Sansone, 2006). In 1997, the Port of San Diego stopped fumigating with methyl

bromide entirely, at least in part as a result of public pressure stemming from concerns about

local air quality (Ross and Walker , 1998; NRDC, 2004; Rowe, 2002).

Bromosorb® is no longer commercially availabl e; however, the same technology is used to

recover refrigerants. It is unlikely that Brom osorb® will be commercially available in the

United States in the future, si nce no companies are currently in volved in its distribution or

future development. In addition, apart from Cryo-Line Supplies, the other companies that

were initially involved with the development a nd distribution of the system are no longer in

operation (Cryo-Line Supplies, Inc., 2006).

References

Agricultural Research Service (2001). MeBr recapt ure system up and running. Available online at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jul01/recap.htm.

Agricultural Research Service (1997). A new patented proce ss contains, recaptures, and recycles methyl bromide.

Available online at: http://www.ars.us da.gov/is/np/mba/april97/bromo.htm.

Bielski, R and PJ Joyce (2003). Conversion of pollutants in dilute aqueous waste streams to useful products: a

potential method based on phase-t ransfer catalysis. Organic Proces s Research & Development. 7:551-

552.

# 114 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report Cryo-line Supplies, Inc. (2006). Telephone conversa tion between Aaron Niman of ICF Consulting and a

representative of Cryo-Line Supp lies. Inc. January 31. 2006.

DFW (2006). Email correspondence between Aaron Nima n of ICF Consulting and Kris Russell of DFW on

February 27, 2006.

Great Lakes Corporation (1999). First methyl bromide reca pture unit installed. Initiatives. Vol. 5, Iss. 1,

Hettenbach, K, et aI. (2002). Development and scale-up of an aqueous ethanolamine scrubber for methyl bromide.

Organic Process Research & Development. 6:407-415.

Joyce, PJ and R, Bielski (2006). Data provided by Pete r Joyce and Roman Bielski of Value Recovery, Inc. to

Aaron Niman of ICF Consulting through e-ma il correspondence. Fe bruary, 13,2006.

Knapp, OF (2005). Proceedings from the 2005 Annual International Resear ch Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions: Methyl Bromide Recovery. Operational Methyl Bromide

Recapture Systems. November 2,2005.

Knapp, GF, DL, McAllister, and JG, Leesch (1998). Proceedings from th e 1998 Annual International Research

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions: Methyl Bromide Recovery.

Available online at: httg:/ /mbao.org/1998airc/058knapp.pdf.

McCallister, D (2006). Telephone conversation between Aar on Niman ofICF Consulting and David McCallister of

Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. January 31, 2006.

NRDC (2004). "Hidden Danger: Environmental Health Th reats in the Latino Community." Natural Resources

Defense Council. October 2004. Available online at:

http://www.nrdc.org/hea lth/effects/latino/eng lish/latino_en.pdf

Ross, Z, and B Walker (1998). "An ill Wind: Meth yl Bromide Use Near California Schools (1998),"

Environmental Working Group. Available online at:

http://www.ewg.org/reports_con tent/an_ill_wind/illwind.pdf.

Rowe, Peter (2002). "Air Clearing Too Slowly in th e Barrio." San Diego Union-Tribune. April 2, 2002.

Russell, K (2006). Telephone conversation between Aa ron Niman of ICF Consulting and Kris Russell of

Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, Inc. January 31, 2006.

Sansone. John (2006). Telephone conversation between Bu rleson Smith of USDA and John Sansone, June 16,

2006.

Value Recovery, Inc. (2006). Value Recover, Inc. Company Website. Availa ble at: www.ptcvalue.com.

Value Recovery, Inc. Press Release (2005a). Value Re covery Awarded USDA Grant to Reduce Ozone Depleting

Emissions of Methyl Bromide. June 28,2005.

Value Recovery, Inc. (2005b). Methyl Bromide Scrubbing for Elimination of Soil Emissions: Proceedings from

the 2005 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alte rnatives and Emissions

Reductions.

Value Recovery, Inc. (2004). Methyl Bromide Scrubbing Technology Development: Proceedings from the 2004

Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Value Recovery (2006). Email correspondence between Aaro n Niman of ICF Consulting and Peter Joyce of Value

Recovery, Inc. on April 3, 2006.

Weightman, M (1999). Proceedings from the 1999 Annual Inte rnational Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reduc tions: Recover and recycle using Bromosorb technologies. Availible

online at: http://mbao.org/I999airc/60weight.pdf.

Willis, E (1998). Proceedings from the 1998 Annual Intern ational Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reduc tions: New design for zeolite-based recapture. Available online at:

http://mbao.org/1998a irc/059willis.pdf.

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 115 Attachment A: Interpretation of the In formation Requested by Decision XVII/II

Table 1: Interpretation of Information Reques ted by Decision XVII/l1 of the 17th MOP

Data requested by 17 th 

# MOP Interpretation

A Recapture or destruction sy stem used Name of system

B Location Location of installed systems or vendor

C Submitting body.

(please provide name and e-mail address of individual

to be contacted in the event of a query) Point of Contact

Party

D Commodity treated Commodity treated in fumigation chamber

E Fumigation contents and volume Volume of commodity treated in fumigation

chamber

F Chamber or tent volume Volume of fumigation chamber

G Percentage loading of the chamber Volume of Commodity as a percent of the

Volume of the fumigation Chamber

H Gas quantity retained by th e recapture or destruction

system Methyl bromide recaptured/destroyed by

system

I Quantity lost during the fumigation by leakage or

reaction Methyl bromide lost during fumigation from

the fumigation chamber

J Residual free gas left in the enclosure after extraction

of methyl bromide into the recapture system Methyl bromide left in fumigation chamber

at the end of the recapt ure/destruction period

K Remaining sorbed gas (taking into account any gas

naturally present prior to fumigation) Methyl bromide absorbed by the commodity

being fumigated

L Quantity of methyl bromide transiting the

recapture/destruction system and lost by leaks in the

system Methyl bromide recaptured/destroyed plus

methyl bromide lost by leaks in the

recapture/destruction system

M Measurement of gas exhausted after recapture

stopped Concentration of methyl bromide in

fumigation chamber after the

recapture/destruction period

N Total gas present in the fumigated system at start of

recapture Quantity of methyl bromide in fumigation

chamber after fumigation, but before

recapture/destruction (i.e., amount of methyl

bromide initially introduced to fumigation

chamber minus amount absorbed by the

commodity minus quantity lost during the

fumigation by leakage or reaction)

O Net efficiency of recapture Meth yl bromide retained by recapture

system divided by methyl bromide present in

the fumigated system at start of recapture

P Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed Cost of recapturing or destroying methyl

bromide per kg

# 116 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# Attachment B: Performance Data a nd Schematic of the MBECp Methyl

Bromide Recovery System

Table 2: Performance Data for the MBECp System

Volume of Enclosure Containing Commodity 141.5 m 3



# Mass of Methyl bromide Applied During Fumigation

Mass Absorbed by MBECp System

Mass retained by Commodity

Mass Released into Atmosphere

Leakage through Tarp

Bypass through System at end of MB Recovery 9.1 kg

7.0

0.2

1.9

0.5

1.5

MB Concentration of System Exhaust at End of MB Recovery 500 ppm

Final MB Concentration in Enclosure after MB Recovery and Aeration 5 ppm

Source: Knapp, 2005

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.



# Figure 1: MBECp System Schematic

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 117 Attachment C: Performance Data and Sc hematic of the Value Recovery, Inc.

Methyl Bromide Scrubber

Table 3: Performance Date on the Methyl Brom ide Scrubber and Comments Provided by Value

Recovery, Inc.

Data Requested by 17 th 

# MOP Value Recovery, Inc. Answer Comments

Commodity treated Solid Wood Packaging Machinery export under

ISPM-15

Fumigation contents and volume 22.94 m3 Assumed contents inside

container

Chamber or tent volume 76.46 m3 Total container volume

Percentage loading of the

chamber 30% Assumed volume

displacement of contents

Gas quantity retained by the

recapture or destruction system 4.141 kg Total amount destroyed

in scrubber

Quantity lost during the

fumigation by leakage or reaction 0.046kg Estimated 1% Loss due

to leakage. Zero ppm

measured at 10m, 50m

and 100m distance from

the equipment.

Residual free gas left in the

enclosure after extraction of

methyl bromide into the

recapture system 0.106 kg Derived from

concentration profile and

exhaust gas rate =

Volumetric flow rate x

concentration

Remaining sorbed gas (taking

into account any gas naturally

present prior to fumigation) 0.027 kg Estimate based on free

concentrations

Quantity of methyl bromide

transiting the

recapture/destruction system and

lost by leaks in the system 4.566 kg Total amount of methyl

bromide removed from

container

Measurement of gas exhausted

after recapture stopped 240 ppm Measured concentration

at end of scrubbing cycle

Total gas present in the

fumigated system at start of

recapture 4.745 kg Transiting plus sorbed

plus residual plus lost

87.3% Total Destroyed/ Total

Present Net efficiency of recapture

Scrubber Efficiency

90.7% Total Destroyed/ Total

through VR System

Cost per kg recaptured/destroyed

(US$) Operating Cost plus

Capital Cost (Operating

Cost includes waste

disposal cost obtained

from vendor quotation)

Source: Joyce and Bielski, 2006

# 118 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# Figure 2: System Schematic of the Va lue Recovery Methyl Bromide Scrubber

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 119 

# ANNEX I

Decision IX/6

1. To apply the following criteria and procedur e in assessing a critical methyl bromide use for

the purposes of contro l measures in Articl e 2 of the Protocol:

(a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualif y as “critical” only if the nominating Party

determines that:

(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of me thyl bromide for that

use would result in a significant market disruption; and

(ii) There are no technically and economic ally feasible alternatives or substitutes

available to the user that are acceptabl e from the standpoint of environment and

health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination;

(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be

permitted only if:

(i) All technically and economically feasib le steps have been taken to minimise the

critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide;

(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in su fficient quantity and quality from existing stocks

of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries’

need for methyl bromide;

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropr iate effort is being made to evaluate,

commercialise and secure national regul atory approval of alternatives and

substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination

and the special needs of Arti cle 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert

resources, institutional capacity, and inform ation. Non-Article 5 Parties must

demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy

alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Pa rties must demonstrate that feasible

alternatives shal l be adopted as soon as they are c onfirmed as suitable to the Party’s

specific conditions and/or that they have appl ied to the Multilateral Fund or other

sources for assistance in identifying, eval uating, adapting and demonstrating such

options;

2. To request the Technology and Economic A ssessment Panel to review nominations and make

recommendations based on the criteri a established in paragraphs 1 (a) (ii) and 1 (b) of the present

decision;

3. That the present decision will apply to Pa rties operating under Article 5 and Parties not so

operating only after the phase-out dat e applicable to those Parties.

Para. 2 of Decision IX/6 does not assi gn TEAP the responsibility for determining the existence of “significant

market disruption” specified in paragraph 1(a)(i).

TEAP assigned its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) to determine whether there are no technically and economically feasible alte rnatives or substitutes available to th e user that are acceptable from the

standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination , and to

address the criteria listed in Decision IX/6 1(b).

# 120 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# ANNEX II

Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protoc ol (Annex I), Prague, 22–26 November

2004), paragraph 15.

(Decision XVI/4. Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical

Options Committee)

“15. An annual work plan will enhance the tran sparency of, and insight in, the operations of

MBTOC. Such a plan should indicate, among other things:

(a) Key events for a given year;

(b) Envisaged meeting da tes of MBTOC, including the stage in the nomination and

evaluation process to which the respective meetings relate;

(c) Tasks to be accomplished at each meeting, including appropriate delegation of such

tasks;

(d) Timing of interim and final reports;

(e) Clear references to the timelines relating to nominations;

(f) Information related to financial needs, wh ile noting that financial considerations

would still be reviewed solely in the c ontext of the review of the Secretariat’s

budget;

(g) Changes in the composition of MBTOC, pursuant to the criteria for selection;

(h) Summary report of MBTOC activities over the previous year, including matters that

MBTOC did not manage to complete, the reas ons for this and plans to address these

unfinished matters;

(i) Matrix with existing and needed skills and expertise; and

(j) Any new or revised standards or presump tions that MBTOC seeks to apply in its

future assessment of critical-use nominations, for approval by the Meeting of the

Parties. ”

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 121 

# ANNEX III: List of methyl brom ide critical uses for soils or

commodities: amounts nominated (2005 – 2008) and exempted by

Parties or recommended for ex emption by TEAP/MBTOC (2005 –

2008).

A. Preplant Soils Applications

TOTAL CUN MB Nominated Total CUE MB Approved or Recommended by

TEAP/MBTOC Party Industry

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008

Australia Cut Flowers

field 40.000 22.350 18.375 22.350

Australia Cut flowers -

protected 20.000 10.425

Australia Cut flowers,

bulbs –

protected Vic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.150 7.000 7.000 3.598 3.500

Australia Strawberry

Fruit 90.000 67.000

Australia Strawberry

runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 35.750 37.500 35.75

Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225

Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180

Belgium Chrysanthem

ums 1.800 0.720 1.120

Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.545 0.610 0.545

Belgium Cut flowers -

other 6.110 1.956 4.000 1.956

Belgium Cut flowers -

roses 1.640

Belgium Endive sep.from

lettuce 1.650 1.650

Belgium Leek & onion

seeds 1.220 0.155 0.660

Belgium Lettuce(&

endive) 42.250 22.425 25.190

Belgium Nursery Not

Predictable 0.384 0.900 0.384

Belgium Orchard

pome & berry 1.350 0.621 1.350 0.621

Belgium Ornamental

plants 5.660 0.000

Belgium Pepper & egg

plant 5.270 1.350 3.000 1.350

Belgium Strawberry

runners 3.400 0.900 3.400 0.900

Belgium Tomato

(protected) 17.170 4.500 5.700 4.500

Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.155 0.230 0.155

Canada Strawberry

runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 (a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462

Canada Strawberry runners

(Quebec) 1.826 1.826 (a) 1.826 1.826

Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.129 6.129

France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 1.400

France Cucumber 85 revised

to 60 60.000 15.000 60.000 60.000 12.500

France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.000 60.000 52.000 9.600

France Forest tree

nursery 10.000 10.000 1.500 10.000 10.000 1.500

France Melon 10.000 10.000 7.500 6.000

France Nursery:

orchard,

raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.000 5.000 5.000 2.000

France Orchard

replant 25.000 25.000 7.500 25.000 25.000 7.000

France Pepper Incl

in.tomato

cun 27.500 6.000 27.500 6.000

# 122 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report France Strawberry

fruit 90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.000 0

France Strawberry

runners 40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.000 28.000

France Tomato (and

eggplant for

2005 only) 150(all

solanaceou

s) 60.500 33.250

Includes

eggplants 125.000 48.400 0

France Eggplant 27.500 48.400 0

Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.200 30.000 19.200

Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.000 14.000 6.000

Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600 156.000 73.600

Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000

Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 25.000

Israel Cut flowers –

open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 77.000 67.000 74.500

Israel Cut flowers -

protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 303.000 240.000 220.185

Israel Fruit tree

nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.000 50.000 45.000 7.500

Israel Melon –

protected &

field 148.000 142.000 140.000 125.650 99.400 99.500

Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 239.000 165.000 137.500

Israel Seed

production 56.000 50.000 56.000 28.000

Israel Strawberries

– fruit 196.000 196.000 176.200 196.000 196.000 65.100

Israel Strawberry

runners 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 28.000

Israel Tomatoes 90.000 22.750

Italy Cut flowers

(protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000 250.000 187.000 30.000

Italy Eggplant

(protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000 194.000 156.000 0

Italy Melon

(protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000 131.000 131.000 10.000

Italy Pepper

(protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000 160.000 130.000 67.000

Italy Strawberry

Fruit

(Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000 407.000 320.000 0

Italy Strawberry

Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000 120.000 120.000 35.000

Italy Tomato

(protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000 871.000 697.000 80.000

Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 88.300 88.800 72.4 51.450

Japan Ginger - field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075

Japan Ginger -

protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100

Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 194.100 203.900 182.2 136.65

Japan Peppers

(green and

hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725

Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 129.000 98.900 94.2 32.475

Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127

Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170

Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212

Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.594

New Zealand Nursery

material 1.085 1.085 0.000

New Zealand Strawberry

fruit 42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.000 0

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 123 New Zealand Strawberry

runners 10.000 10.000 5.720 8.000 8.000 6.234

Poland Strawberry

Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 40.000 40.000 24.500

Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.750 50.000 8.750

Spain Cut Flowers -

Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.000 53.000 42.000 43.490

Spain Cut Flowers -

Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 20.000 15.000 Included

above

Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000 200.000 155.000 45.000

Spain Strawberry

Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000 556.000 499.290 0.0796

Spain Strawberry

Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 230.000 230.000 230.000

UK Cut flowers 7.560 6.050

UK Ornamental

tree nursery 12.000 6.000 6.000 6.000

UK Strawberry (&

raspberry in

2005) 80.000 63.600 68.000 54.500

UK Raspberry nursery 4.400 4.400

USA Chrys.

Cuttings/rose

s 29.412 29.412 0.000

USA Cucurbits -

field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 1187.800 747.839 592.891 473.211

USA Eggplant -

field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 76.721 82.167 85.363 47.582

USA Forest

nursery

seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 192.515 157.694 122.032 96.829

USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000

USA Orchard

replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 706.176 527.600 405.4 365.094

USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 154.000 148.483 137.835 123.333

USA Nursery stock

- fruit trees,

raspberries,

roses 45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 45.800 64.528 28.275 23.253

USA Peppers -

field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 551.045

USA Strawberry

fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 2052.846 1730.828 1476.019 1025.388

USA Strawberry

runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 54.988 56.291 4.483 7.944

USA Tomato - field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 2876.046 2476.365 2065.246 1076.508

USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 206.827 131.600 78.04 0

USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 0

# 124 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# ANNEX III (Cont’): List of methyl bromide critical uses for soils or

commodities: amounts nominated (2005 – 2008) and exempted by

Parties or recommended for ex emption by TEAP/MBTOC (2005 –

2008).

B. Commodity Applications

TOTAL CUN MB Nominated Total CUE MB Approved or recommended by

TEAP/MBTOC Party Industry

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008

Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100

Australia Rice

consumer

packs 12.300 12.300 14.300 9.200 6.150 6.150 7.380

Belgium Artefacts and

structures 0.600 0.307 0.590 0.307

Belgium Antique

structure &

furniture 0.750 0.199 0.319 0.199

Belgium Churches,

monuments

and ships’

quarters 0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059

Belgium Electronic

equipment 0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035

Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043

Belgium Flour mill see

mills below 0.125 0.072 See mills

below 0.072

Belgium Flour mills 10.000 4.170 9.515 4.170

Belgium Mills 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200

Belgium Food

processing

facilities 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300

Belgium Food

Processing

premises 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

Belgium Food storage

(dry) structure 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000

Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306

Belgium Old buildings

and objects 0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282

Belgium Woodworking

premises 0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101

Canada Flour mills 47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 (a)47 34.774 30.167 28.650

Canada Pasta

manufacturing

facilities (a) 10.457 6.757 (a) 10.457 6.757

France Seeds sold by

PLAN-SPG

company 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 0.096

France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.000 40.000 35.000 8.000

France Rice

consumer

packs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000

France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 1.800

Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100

Germany Mills and Processors 45.000 19.350 45.000

Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.900 4.280 3.081 0.450

Greece Mills and

Processors 23.000 16.000 1.340 23.000 15.445 1.340

# September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report 

# 125 Greece Rice and

legumes 2.355 2.355

Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888 0

Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650

Israel Dates (post

harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 3.444 2.755 2.200

Israel Flour mills

(machinery &

storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 2.140 1.490 1.040

Israel Furniture–

imported 1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000 0

Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 5.000

Italy Mills and

Processors 160.000 130.000 25.000 160.000 65.000 25.000

Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300

Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502

The

Netherlands Runners post

harvest 0.120 0.120 0.120 0 0.12

Poland Medicinal

herbs & dried

mushrooms

as dry

commodities 4.000 3.560 1.800 4.100 3.560 1.800

Poland Coffee, cocoa

beans (a) 2.160 2.000 2.160 1.420

Spain Rice 50.000 42.065

Switzerland Mills &

Processors 8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000

UK Aircraft 0.165 0.165

UK Mills and

Processors 47.130 10.195 4.509 47.130 10.195 4.509

UK Cereal

processing

plants 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 3.480

UK Cheese

stores 1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 1.248 1.248

UK Dried

commodities

(rice, fruits

and nuts)

Whitworths 2.400 1.256 2.400 1.256

UK Herbs and

spices 0.035 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.037 0

UK Mills and

Processors

(biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.479 2.525 1.787 0.479

UK Spices

structural

equip. 1.728 1.728 0.000

UK Spices stored 0.030 0.030 0.000

UK Structures

buildings

(herbs and

spices) 3.000 1.872 0.908 3.000 1.872 0.908

UK Structures,

processors

and storage

(Whitworths) 1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 0.257

UK Tobacco 0.523 0.050 0.000

UK Woven

baskets 0.770 0.770 0.000

USA Dried fruit and

nuts (walnuts,

pistachios,

dried fruit and

dates and

dried beans) 89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.912

# 126 September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report USA Dry

commodities/

structures

(cocoa beans) 61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 61.519 55.367 64.082 53.188

USA - NPMA Dry

commodities/

structures

(processed

foods, herbs

and spices,

dried milk and

cheese

processing

facilities)

NPMA 83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208

USA Smokehouse

hams (Dry

cure pork

products)

(building and

product) 136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 67.907 81.708 18.998 19.669

USA Mills and

Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report127ANNEX IV: Methyl Bromide TechnicalOptions Committee Members– September 2006Names Gender Affiliation Expertise LengthofserviceCountry Article 5 statusCo-Chairs1. Mohamed Besri M Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire HassanII (Academia)Researcher, particularly MBand alts in A5 (PhD)B Morocco A52. Michelle Marcotte F Consultant Consultant, particularly foodprocessing, regulations andirradiationA Canada Non-A53. Marta Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB alts,particularly cut flowerproductionB Colombia A54. Ian Porter M Department of Primary Industries(Government research)Researcher, soils MB use andalts, particularly fungalpathogens and IPM (PhD)B Australia Non-A5Members5. Marten Barel M ConsultantConsultant, , specialist on soildisinfections, SoilessHydroponics, Steaming, Biofumigation and SolarizationD Netherlands Non-A56. Jonathan Banks M Consultant Consultant, postharvest,particularly nonchemical andgas technologies (fumigants,CA) (PhD)A Australia Non-A57. Chris Bell M Consultant, formerly Central ScienceLaboratory (Government research)Postharvest technologies,particularly fumigants,phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride,controlled atmospheres andheat' (PhD)B UK Non-A58. Antonio Bello M Centrode Ciencias Medioambientales(Government research)Non-chemical alternatives(PhD, Prof.)A Spain Non-A59. Aocheng Cao M Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences(Government research)Researcher, soil alternatives,particularly in China (A5)context (PhD)C China A510. Peter Caulkins M Associate Director, Special Review &Reregistration Division US EPARegistration of alternatives,regulatory issues (PhD)D US Non A-5128September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report11. Fabio Chaverri M IRET-Universidad Nacional (Academia) Researcher, soil alternatives,including solarisationC Costa Rica A512. Ricardo Deang M ConsultantRegulatory and registration.Entomologist (PhD)A Philippines A513. Patrick Ducom M Ministère de l’Agriculture (Governmentresearch)Postharvest and structuralalternativesB France Non-A514. Abraham Gamliel M Agricultural Research Organization,The Volcani Center, (Government Research)Alternatives for soils,horticulture (PhD)D Israel Non-A515. Darka Hamel F Institute for Plant Protection in Agricultureand Forestry (Government)Postharvest and structuraltreatments, regulationsD Croatia A516. Saad Hafez M University of Idaho (Academia) Soils alternatives,nematologist (PhD, Prof.)C US Non-A517. George Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agri-food Canada(Government research)Researcher, non chemicalcontrol of soilborne pathogens(PhD)C Canada Non-A518. Nahum Marbán Mendoza M Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo(Academia)Researcher, soils alternatives,particularly nematodeproblems (PhD, Prof.)C Mexico A519. Carlos Medeiros M EMBRAPA (Government research) Alternatives for tobacco,horticultureD Brazil A520. Melanie Miller F Consultant Consultant in MB alternativesuse (PhD)A Belgium Non-A521. Andrea Minuto M Agroinnova UniversitaTorino (Academia) Researcher, MB andalternatives in soils (PhD)D Italy Non-A522. Takashi Misumi M MAFF (Governmentresearch) QPS expert D Japan Non-A523. Kazufumi Nishi M Nat Institute of Vegetables and Tea Science(Government research)Nonchemical alts, particularlyheat systems for soils (PhD)D Japan Non-A524. David Okioga M Ministryof Environment and NaturalResources (Government regulatory)Postharvest and QPS MB alts(PhD)A Kenya A525. Christoph Reichmuth M BBAGermany (Government research) Researcher, MB alts inpostharvest/structures (PhD)B Germany Non-A526. Jordi Riudavets M IRTA-Departament of Plant Protection.(Government Research)IPM for stored products andhorticultural crops (PhD)D Spain Non-A527. Ariane Saade F Totken Lebanon Economics and trade D Lebanon A528. John Sansone M SCC Products (Fumigator) Fumigator, particular expertisein structuresA US Non-A529. James D. Schaub M United States Department of Agriculture(Government regulatory)Agricultural economist (PhD) C US Non-A530. Sally Schneider F United StatesDepartment of Agriculture Researcher in soils alts, C US Non-A5September 2006 TEAP Report on 2006 CUNs: Final Report129(Government research) particularly replant problemsand propagative materialnurseries (PhD)31. JL Staphorst M Plant Protection Research Institute(Parastatal research)Expert Soil Microbiologist(DSc)B South Africa A532. Akio Tateya M Syngenta Japan K.K.Application of MB and alts,particularly in JapanA Japan Non-A533. Robert Taylor M Consultant Postharvest technology,specifically A5 usesA UK Non-A534. Alejandro Valeiro M Instituto Nacional de TecnologíaAgropecuaria (Government research)Introduction/use of soils alts,including tobaccoC Argentina A535. Ken Vick M United States Department of Agriculture(Government research)Research in MB alternatives,incl. QPS (PhD)A US Non-A536. Nick Vink M University of Stellenbosch (Academia) Agricultural economics (PhD,Prof.)C South Africa A537. Jim Wells M Environmental Solutions Group, LLC(Consultant)Registration and regulatory -MB and alternatives, soil usesA US Non-A538. Chris Watson M IGROX Ltd (Fumigator) Practical use of MB andalternatives including the useof PH3, SF,CO2 and HeatTreatments forcommodoties(inc timber) andstructuresA UK Non-A5Totals M =32F =6A= 10B= 8C = 10D= 10A5=13Non-A5=25A - >10 yearsB – 5-10C – 2-5D - <2 year