# MONTREAL PROTOCOL

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE

THE OZONE LAYER



# UNEP

R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# O CTOBER 

# 2008

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2008 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL


# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

## ii October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

# UNEP

O CTOBER 

# 2008 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC


# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2008 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR


# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

### October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## iii Montreal Protocol

On Substances that De plete the Ozone Layer



# Report of the UNEP Technology and Econom ic Assessment Panel

October 2008

E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2008 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: MBTOC Soils: Marta Pizano, Ian Porter, Mohamed Besri MBTOC QSC: Michelle Ma rcotte, Jonathan Banks

Layout of the report: Ozone Secretariat, UNEP

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi

Date: October 2008

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 Lt d., Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK, fax: +

44 1438 748844

This document is also available in portable document format from http://www.unep.org/ozone/teap /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 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

### Disclaimer

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-Chairs and member s, and the 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 environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial ope ration requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and w aste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation - more information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements will b ecome available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.

UNEP, TEAP Co-Chairs and members, and the MB TOC Co-Chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing this information, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness , 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 lim ited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or pe rformance, 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 company, association, or product, either express or implied by UNEP, TEAP Co-C hairs and members, and the MBTOC Co-Chairs and members or the companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgement

The Technology and Economic Assessment Pane l and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee acknowledge with thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals and organisations who provided suppor t to Panel and Committee Co-Chairs and members. Particular appreciation goes to Meg Seki, UNEP Senior Scie nce Officer, for her technical and scientific support and her contribution to the report. The opi nions expressed are those of the Panel and the

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



## Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee:

MBTOC Soils Co-Chairs : Mohamed Besri (Morocco); Marta Pizano (Colombia); Ian Porter (Australia). Members of MBTOC Soils : Antonio Bello (Spain); Aocheng Cao (China); Peter Caulkins (USA); Abraham Gamliel (Israel); Ge orge Lazarovits (Canada); Andrea Minuto (Italy); Ariane Saade (Lebanon); James Schaub (USA); Sa lly Schneider (USA); JL (Stappies) Staphorst (South Africa); Akio Tateya (Japan); Alejandr o Valeiro (Argentina); Nick Vink (South Africa); Janny Vos (The Netherlands); Jim Wells (USA)

MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities (QSC) Chair: Michelle Marcotte (Canada) Members of MBTOC QSC Jonathan Banks (Australia); Fr ed Bergwerff (Netherlands); Chris Bell (UK); Kathy Dalip (Belize); Ricardo Deang (Philippines); Patrick Ducom (France); Alfredo Gonzalez (Philippines); Ken Glassey (New Zeala nd); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Takashi Misumi (Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Christoph Reic hmuth (Germany); Jordi Riudavets (Spain); John Sansone (USA); Robert Taylor (UK); Ken Vick (USA); Chris Watson (UK); and Eduardo Willink (Argentina).

MBTOC Quarantine Task Force (QTF) Chair : Jonathan Banks (Australia). Fred Bergwerff (Netherlands); Kathy Dalip (Belize); Ken Gl assey (New Zealand); Darka Hamel (Croatia); Takashi Misumi (Japan); David Okioga (Kenya); Ken Vick (USA); and Eduardo Willink (Argentina).

### October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## v 

# O CTOBER 

# 2008 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC


# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2008 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR


# M ETHYL 

# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT

## vi October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

# UNEP

O CTOBER 

# 2008 R EPORT OF THE



# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# E CONOMIC


# A SSESSMENT 

# P ANEL



# E VALUATIONS OF 

# 2008 C RITICAL 

# U SE 

# N OMINATIONS FOR 

# M ETHYL


# B ROMIDE AND 

# R ELATED 

# M ATTERS



# F INAL 

# R EPORT



# – O CTOBER 

# 2008

Common Acronyms

1,3-D 1,3-dichloropropene A5 Article 5 Party CUE Critical Use Exemption

CUN Critical Use Nomination

DOI Disclosure of Interest EC European Community EMOP Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPPO European Plant Protection Organisation

IM Iodomethane IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPPC International Pl ant Protection Convention

ISPM International Sta ndard Phytosanitary Measure LPBF Low Permeability Barrier Film (including VIF films) MB Methyl Bromide MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee MBTOC QSC Methyl Bromide Technical Op tions Committee Quarantine, Structures

and Commodities Subcommittee MBTOC S Methyl Bromide Techni cal Options Soils Subcommittee

MDI Metered Dose Inhalers MITC Methyl isothiocyanate MOP Meeting of the Parties

MS Metham sodium OEWG Open Ended Working Group Pic Chloropicrin QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment SF Sulfuryl fluoride TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel

USA United States of America VIF Virtually Impermeable Film VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

### October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SCOPE OF THE REPORT 1

2. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY PARTIES: 3

3. CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE 5

3.1 M ANDATE 

### 5

3.2 F ULFILMENT OF 

### D ECISION 

### IX/6 5

3.3 C ONSIDERATION OF 

### S TOCKS



### - D ECISION 

### E X 

### .1/4 (9 F 

### ) 5

3.4. R EPORTING OF 

### MB C ONSUMPTION FOR 

### C RITICAL 

### U SE



### - D ECISION 

### XVII/9 7

3.5 T RENDS IN 

### M ETHYL 

### B ROMIDE 

### U SE FOR 

### CUE S SINCE 

### 2005 7

3.6 E VALUATIONS OF 

### CUN S



### – 2008 ROUND FOR 

### 2009 AND 

### 2010 EXEMPTIONS 

### 11

3.7. C RITICAL 

### U SE 

### N OMINATIONS 

### R EVIEW 

### 13

3.8 D ISCLOSURE OF 

### I NTEREST 

### 14



### 4. MBTOC SOILS: FINAL EVALUATIONS OF 2008 CRITICAL USE

NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE 15

4.1 S UMMARY OF OUTCOMES 

### 15

4.2. I SSUES RELATED TO 

### CUN A SSESSMENT FOR 

### P REPLANT 

### S OIL 

### U SE 

### 16

4.2.1. Registration of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision Ex I/4 (9i) and (9j) 17

4.2.2. Update on rates of adoption of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision XIX/9 18

4.2.3. Sustainable alternatives for preplant uses 19

4.2.4. Frequency of allowed MB use for preplant uses 20

4.3. E CONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF IODOMETHANE 

### (IM) 20

4.4. S TANDARD PRESUMPTIONS USED IN ASSESSMENT OF NOMINATED QUANTITIES 

### . 21

4.5. A DJUSTMENTS FOR STANDARD DOSAGE RATES USING 

### MB/P IC FORMULATIONS 

### 24

4.6. U SE 

### /E MISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES



### - L OW PERMEABILITY BARRIER FILMS AND

DOSAGE REDUCTION 

### 25

4.7. U SE OF DISPOSABLE CANISTERS OF 

### MB 25

4.8. M ETAANALYSIS UPDATE 

### 26



### 5. MBTOC QSC: FINAL EVALUA TIONS OF 2008 CRITICAL USE

NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE 52

5.1. Q UARANTINE ISSUES 

### 52

5.2. R EGULATORY AND 

### N EWS 

### U PDATE 

### C ONCERNING 

### MB A LTERNATIVES FOR 

### P OSTHARVEST


### U SES 

### 53

5.3. D ETAILS OF EVALUATIONS 

### 55



### 6. REFERENCES 63

7. MBTOC WORK PLAN FOR 2009 73

7.1 I NTRODUCTION 

### 73

7.2 MBTOC W ORKPLAN FOR 

### 2009

- D ETAILS 

### 73



### 8. SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY

MBTOC IN 2008 77

ANNEX I: DECISION IX/6 78

ANNEX II: DECISION XVI/4 79

ANNEX III: RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF MB/PIC FORMULATIONS

APPLIED IN COMBINATION WITH LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER FILMS (LPBF) COMPARED TO THE COMMERCIAL STANDARD

MB/PIC FORMULATION APPLIED UNDER STANDARD LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE FILMS (LDPF). 80

ANNEX IV: METHYL BROMIDE REDUCTI ON TRENDS, BASED ON

HISTORICAL RATES OF AD OPTION IN THE EC 83

ANNEX V– PART A: TREND IN PREPLANT SOIL APPLICATIONS 86

ANNEX VI– PART B: POST-HARVEST STRUCTURAL AND COMMODITY

APPLICATIONS 89

ANNEX VII: DISCLOSURE AND MEMBERS OF MBTOC COMMITTEES 91

### October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 1 

# 1. Scope of the Report

This 2008 final report provides evaluations by MBTOC of CUNs submitted for methyl bromide (MB) in 2009 and 2010 by Parties in accordance with Decision IX/6 (Annex I). CUNs were submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the Parties, in

accordance with the timetable set out in th e Annex I referred to by Decision XVI/4 (Annex II of this report).

This final report also provides informati on from Parties on stocks (Decision Ex.1/4 (9f)), an update on registration issues affecting availability of alternatives for preplant and postharvest uses (Decision Ex. 1/4 (9i) and (9j)), partial information on actual MB consumption for critical uses (Decisi on XVII/9) and apparent adoption rates of alternatives, as evidenced by trend lines on reduction of MB CUNs as required under

Decision XIX/9. It is noted that these tre nd lines do not necessarily indicate true adoption rates, but may include allowance for use of stocks and changes in procedure, such as altered MB dosage rates and/or frequency of treatment.

A revision of the standard presumptions for some preplant uses of MB, as agreed by

Parties at the 19 th 

## MOP, is also shown. MBTOC has updated references to substantiate its standard presumptions for MB dosage rates (Annex III). These standard presumptions will be thoroughly reviewed and further substantiated before

the next round of evaluations.

MBTOC Soils (MBTOC S) has initial res ponsibility for the pre-plant uses and alternatives of methyl bromide. MBTO C Quarantine, Structures and Commodities (MBTOC QSC) has initial responsibility for issues concerning methyl bromide uses and alternatives for quarantine, pre-shipme nt, structural and commodity treatments. Evaluations of CUNs for the two categories are reported separately below. Outcomes from deliberations by the two MBTOC subc ommittees were discussed and vetted via

electronic communication. Recommendations made by MBTOC S were circulated to MBTOC QSC and vice versa, as part of the process of reaching consensus within the

whole committee.

### October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 3 

# 2. Issues for Consideration by Parties:

At the 28 th 

## OEWG the following issues we re brought forward by TEAP.

Issue No 1.

In evaluating Critical use Nominations, Decision IX/6(1)(b)(iii) instructs:

“(1)(b) That production and consumpti on, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if: ...

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropria te effort is being made to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulat ory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideratio n the circumstances of the particular nomination and the special needs of Ar ticle 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert resources, institu tional capacity, and information. NonArticle 5 Parties must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and subs titutes. Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that feasible alternatives 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 sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and dem onstrating such options; ”

TEAP considers that some nominations are not demonstrating appropriate effort to evaluate, commercialise and s ecure national regulatory a pproval of alternatives and substitutes, as required by Decision IX/6. In relati on to this Decision, TEAP considers required effort to include:

• conduct and report on trials, and report efforts to commercialise and secure national regulatory approval within the preceding year of the nomination, as well as prior years.

TEAP suggests Parties may wish to give further guidance on this matter or ask MBTOC to clarify specific crit eria that would meet the re quirements of Decision IX/6 and instruct MBTOC to interpret Decision IX/6 according to th ese criteria, when conducting evaluations of CUNs.

Issue No 2.

Several instances have come to the no tice of TEAP and MBTOC where particular treatments have been classified as QPS treatments by some Parties, but under some interpretations of Decisions VI/11, VII/5 and XI/12 may not be so.

TEAP has discussed the possibl e limitations to the QPS cla ssification in its previous reports (e.g. TEAP 1999). The leaflet enti tled ‘Methyl Bromide: Quarantine and Preshipment Uses’, copublished by UNEP and IPPC also discussed this issue (UNEP 2007).

## 4 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Parties that exempt particular treatments as QPS from phase out schedules may wish

to review this classification and take appropriate action (e.g. nominate for critical use, incorporate the use as part of a phase out project) if the use is found not to be a QPS

treatment after review.

Issue No 3.

Technically, feasible alternat ives are available for almost all the nominated uses (MBTOC 2006) and most Partie s are transitioning to altern atives rapidly, often within 3 years of local availability. In many sector s complete phase out is now possible, but transition rates are slowed by specific regulatory and commerc ial barriers (registration and associated data gathering, commercial c onstraints to registration for minor uses, certification regulations, buffe r zones, lack of MRLs fo r food commodities) and slow registration of key alternatives preventing tr ansition. It is recogni zed that legitimate environmental and public health concer ns contribute to regulatory limits on

alternatives and are a matter of national s overeignty. In some instances, governments and registrants have not made registration of new alternativ es a priority, particularly when the alternatives cost more than methyl bromide.

Like the phaseout of Essential Use Exempti ons for MDIs, Parties may wish to require Action Plans that describe the steps necessary to achieve a declar ed final phaseout. A date-certain phaseout date would be an in centive to users and a reward for firms offering environmentally superior and th e next best legal (registered and not constrained by regulation) altern atives to MB. An example of such a plan, with step wise phase out schedules for MB identifie d, has been developed by Japan in this round to phase out all critical uses for soil uses by 2013.

### October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 5 

# 3. Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

3.1 Mandate

Under Article 2H of the Montreal Protoc ol the production and consumption (defined as production plus imports minus exports) of MB 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 enabli ng exemptions for those uses of methyl bromide that qualify as critical. Parties established crit eria, under Decision IX /6 of the Protocol,

which all such uses need to meet in order to be granted an exemption. MBTOC provides guidance to the Parties’ decisions on critical use exemptions in accordance

with Decisions IX/6 and Anne x I of Decision XVI/4. Refer to Annexes I and II of this report for copies of these Decisions.

3.2 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6

Decision XVI/2 directed MBTOC to indi cate whether all CUNs fully met the requirements of Decision IX/6. When the requirements of Decision IX/6 were met,

MBTOC recommended the full amount of the nomination. Where some of the conditions were not fully met, MBTOC did not recommend or recommended a decreased amount, or was unable to assess, depending on its technical and economic

evaluation. The full text for Decision IX/6 can be found in Annex I at the end of this

document. MBTOC reduced a nomination when a technical alternative was considered effective or, in a few cases, when the Party failed to show that it was not effective. In this round of CUNs, as in previous rounds, MBTOC considered all information provided by the Parties, incl uding answers to questions requested by MBTOC, up to the date of the assessment.

MBTOC has again encountered difficulty in assessment of some nominations for methyl bromide use on soils when yield lo sses presented in some nominations differ markedly from those reported in a large num ber of studies in similar circumstances and are not substantiated by recent references.

Now that alternatives have been identifie d for most applicatio ns, regulations on the use of these alternatives and comp arative information on the economic feasibility/infeasibility of their use compared to MB are critical to the outcomes of present and future CUNs. Without this information, further CUNs may not be assessable. In some cases, MBTOC has pr oposed potential res earch and regulatory issues to Parties that could assist the phase out of MB. In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4, Parties, inter alia, specifically requested that, in cases

where a nomination relies on the economi c criteria of Decision IX/6, MBTOC’s report should explicitly stat e the central basis for the Party’s economic argument relating to CUNs.

3.3 Consideration of Stocks - Decision Ex.1/4 (9f)

One criterion for granting a cr itical use under Decision IX/6 is that methyl bromide for the use “is not available in sufficient qua ntity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide” (para. 1 (b) (ii)). Parties no minating critical use exemptions are requested under decision Ex.I/4(9f) to submit an accounting

## 6 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## framework with the information on stocks. Since the consideration of stocks is an active area of negotiation for the Parties, MBTOC has not made an adjustment to a

nomination to account for stocks held a nd has relied on Parties to make this adjustment.

In accordance with Decision XVIII/13(7), a su mmary of the data on stocks reported by the Parties in 2007 for 2006 and 2008 for 2007 has been summarized in Table 3.1 below. Parties may wish to consider this information in the light of Decision IX/6 1(b)(ii). Tables 3. 1 –3. 3 show the stock da ta that have been reported by the Parties in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Efficient functioning of commerce requires a certain level of “pipeline” stocks and additional stocks to respond to emergencies. Additionally, stocks may be held on behalf of other Parties or for exempt uses (feedstock and QPS uses). The correct or optimal level of stocks for virtually ev ery input to production is not zero.

Table 3.1. Quantities of MB (metric tonnes) ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2005, as reported by Parties in 2007 under Decision XVI/6.

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) Party Critical use exemptions

authorized by MOP for

2005 Amount on

hand at

start of

2005 Quantity Acquired for

CUEs in 2005 (production +imports) Amount

available

for use in

2005 Quantity

used

for CUEs in

2005 Amount

on hand

at the

end of

2005

Australia 146.6 0 114.912 114.912 114.912 0

Canada 61.792 0 48.858 48.858 45.146 3.712

EC 4 392.812 216.198 2 435.319 2 651.517 2 530.099 121.023

Israel 1 089.306 16.358 1 072.35 1 088.708 1 088.708 0 Japan 748 0 594.995 594.995 546.861 48.134

New

Zealand 50 6.9 40.5 47.4 44.58 2.81

USA(a) 9 552.879 7 613 not reported 7 170 443
(a) Additional information on stocks was reported on US EPA website, Septembe r 2006: Methyl bromide inventory held by USA companies: 2004 = 12,994 tonnes; 2005 = 9,974 tonnes.



## Table 3.2 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2006, as reported by Parties in 2007/2008 under Decision XVI/6.

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) Party Critical use exemptions

authorized by MOP for

2006 Amount on

hand at

start of

2006 Quantity acquired for

CUEs in 2006 (production + imports) Amount

available

for use in

2006 Quantity

used for

CUEs in

2006 Amount

at the end

of 2006

Australia 75.1 0 55.308 55.308 0

Canada 53.897 3.713 41.969 45.682 44.114 1.568

EC 3 536.755 114.953 1 462.747 1 577.700 1 558.557 19.114

Israel 880.29 0 840.6 840.6 840.6 0 Japan 741.4 70.735 488.81 559.545 540.207 19.338 USA 8 081.753 9 974(a) 443(b) 6 924 16 898 6 425 8 170(c)

(a) Amount of pre-2005 stock on hand. (b) Amount of stocks at the end of 2005 from production/impor ts specifically made fo r CUEs (acquired in 2005). (c) The sum of 499 tonnes of stocks produced/imported in 2006 specifically for CUEs, plus 7,671 tonnes stocks acquired pre-2005.

### October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 7 Table 3.3 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2007, as reported by Parties in 2008 under Decision XVI/6.

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) Party Critical use exemptions

authorized by MOP for

2007 Amount on

hand at

start of

2007 Quantity Acquired for

CUEs in 2007 (production +imports) Amount

available

for use in

2007 Quantity

used

for CUEs in

2007 Amount

on hand

at the

end of

2007

Australia 48.553 0 45.832 45.832 45.832 0

Canada 52.874 0.897 38.073 38.970 38.622 0.348

EC 689.142 31.635 484.842 516.477 508.031 8.446

Israel 966.465 0 940.675 940.675 750.225 190.45 Japan 636.172 23.417 479.290 502.707 485.113 17.594 USA 6 749 7 671(a) 4 314 11 985 4 269 6 503(b)
(a) Amount of pre-2005 stocks 

### (b) The sum of 45 tonnes of stocks produced/imported in 2007 specifically for CUEs, plus 6,458 tonnes stocks acquired pre-2005.



## 3.4. Reporting of MB Consumption for Critical Use - Decision XVII/9

Decision XVII/9(10) of the 17 th 

## MOP requests TEAP and its MBTOC to “report for 2005 and annually thereafter, for each agr eed critical use category, the amount of methyl bromide nominated by a Party, the am ount of the agreed critical use and

either:

(a) The amount licensed, permitted or authorised; or (b) The amount used”

Since the start of the CUN reviews in 2003, MBTOC has provided the amounts of MB nominated and agreed for each critical us e (Annexes VI and VII). Not all Parties supply data under Table 2 of the accoun ting framework, set out on p. 65 of the Handbook on Critical Use Nominations (version 6 of December 2007). Data reported here for (a) and (b) above is thus incomplete.

Tables and figures in this report (Table 3.4, Figures 3.1 - 3.2) show the nominated MB amounts and the apparent rate of reduc tion in MB or adoption of alternatives achieved by Parties. It should be noted th at for those countries that have pre-2005 stocks of MB that are being drawn down, th e reductions in CUEs from year to year cannot be taken directly as evidence of alterna tive adoption since pre-2005 stocks will

have been sold into the same sectors.

Table 3.4 in particular shows the amounts nominated and approved for ‘Critical Use’

in 2009 and 2010.

3.5 Trends in Methyl Bromide Use for CUEs since 2005

As part of the requirements of Decision XVII/9 trends in phase out by Parties are shown below. Since 2005, there has been a pr ogressive trend by all Parties to reduce their nominations for consumption for prep lant soil uses and post harvest uses, although this has occurred at different rates. Figs 3.1 and 3.2 show the trends in the reduction in amounts approved/nominated by Pa rties for ‘Critical Use’ from 2005 to 2010 for some key uses. The complete trends in phase out of MB by country, as indicated by change in CUE, are shown in Annexes V and VI.

## 8 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Figure 3.1. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in preplant soil industries from 2005 to 2009. Solid lines indicate the trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl bromid e nominated by the Parties for either 2009

or 2010.

Cucurbits and Melons

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA Cutflowers

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA

Orchard Replant

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes

France

USA Peppers and Eggplant

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2005 200 6 2 00

7 2 0 08 2009 2 01

0

Yearsmetric tonnes Belgium

France

Italy

Japan

Spain

USA Strawberry Fruit

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

UK

USA Tomatoes

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes Belgiu m

Greece

Italy

USA

### October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 9 Figure 3.2. Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in mills and food processing facilities from 2005 to 2009. Solid lines in dicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the Party for either

2009 or 2010.

All Food Processing and Milling (Not Commodities)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Yearmetric tonnes Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Greece

Israel

Italy

UK

USA10October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportTable 3.4. Summary of Critical Use Nomination (2005 – 2010 in part)and Exemption (2005 – 2009 in part) Amounts of MB Granted byParties under the CUN/CUE Process. (Note: A breakdown ofCUN and CUE amounts by sectoris given in Annex VI)QUANTITIES NOMINATEDQUANTITIES APPROVEDQuantitiesRecommendedPARTY2005 2006 2007 2008200920102005(1ExMOPand16MOP)2006(16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)2007(17MOP+18MOP)2008(18MOP+19MOP)2009(19MOP)2009*2010*Australia 206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 37.610 146.600 75.100 48.517 48.45 37.61 36.44Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 39.115 30.340 61.792 53.897 52.874 36.112 34.38 4.74 30.34EuropeanCommunity15754.361 4213.47 1239.873 245.00 0 0 4392.812 3536.755 689.142 245.146 0 0 0Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 699.448 * 1089.306 880.295 966.715 860.672 0 610.554Japan 748.000 741.400 651.700 589.600 508.900 288.500 748.000 741.400 636.172 443.775 305.38 267.0New Zealand 53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 0 50.000 42.000 18.234 0 0 0 0Switzerland 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 0 0USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4958.034 3399.490 9552.879 8081.753 6749.060 5355.976 4261.974 3233.456TOTALS 18704.241 15617.837 10677.552 8297.739 6244.187 3755.940 16050.089 13418.200 9160.714 6990.131 4,639.344 615.594 3567.236* Not yet available.1Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs include:2005 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.2006 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.2007 – France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom2008 – Poland, Spain

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 11 3.6 Evaluations of CUNs – 2008 round for 2009 and 2010 exemptions

MBTOC met separately in subcommittees in September to conduct further review of CUNs as requested by Parties, to update re ports, discuss issues of registration of alternatives and other matters. The meetings were held as required by the time schedule for considerations of CUNs given in Anne x I referred to in Decision XVI/4. Consensus decisions were made in subcommittees. Outcomes from deliberations by the two

MBTOC subcommittees were discussed a nd vetted via electronic communication. Recommendations made by MBTOC S were ci rculated to MBTOC QSC and vice versa, as part of the process of reaching consensus within the whole committee.

During its first meeting of the year held in Tel Aviv, Israel (13 – 18 April, 2008) MBTOC S found information by the Parties suffi cient to make recommendations for all nominations submitted. Two Parties however, the USA and Japan, requested the

subcommittee to consider furt her or new information relati ng to their nominations, and this justified a second meeting, which took place in Alassio, Italy, from 31 August to 2 September, 2008. Some recommendations we re changed in light of the new or additional information supplied as specified in Tables 3.5 and 4.5.

MBTOC QSC met in Chengdu, China on 21 Sept ember 2008 to consider again Critical Use Nominations for which Parties had submitted further information subsequent to the initial evaluations given in TEAP 2008 and those evaluated as unable to assess in that report. The meeting was a ttended by 9 of the 19 MBTO C-QSC members, including 2 UNEP-supported A5 members, and one from MBTOC-S. Several MBTOC QSC members could not attend the Chengdu meeting. Not all members of MBTOC-QSC were financed to attend a one-day meeti ng by the organizations that sponsor their membership. Arrangements were made for so me members to contribute to the meeting by teleconference, with subsequent circulation of drafts by email.

Annex 1 of Decision XVI/4 contains a wo rk schedule for MBTOC, which envisions two meetings per year to make CUN evalua tions. The schedule further allows MBTOC to seek further information from Parties and for Parties to provide further information in response to MBTOCs interi m recommendations made during the first meeting. UNEP and Party funding of MBTOC members would thus allow the committee to conduct its tasks appropriately a nd complete its work.

At the OEWG meeting, bilateral meetings we re held with Australia, Canada, Japan and

the United States. The United States met with MBTOC-S during the Alassio meeting for discussions with regard to their CUNs , and communicated with MBTOC QSC at the meeting in Chengdu, China via prearranged teleconference, both in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex 1 of the 16 th 

## MOP.

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2009 and 2010. No nominations in this particular round were submitted for longer periods.

Two Parties (Israel and Canada) submitted nominations for the 2009 round and four Parties (Australia, Canada, Japan, and the USA) submitted nominations for 2010.

These Parties have submitted nominations in previous CUN rounds. Israel submitted a nomination for preplant soil us e of MB for seed production, which had not been applied for in the 2006 and 2007, but was submitted in 2003 and 2004. The total number of

## 12 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## nominations has been reduced from about 58 nominations submitted by seven countries

in the last round. The EC has submitted no nominations in this round for 2009 and advised that they will no longer be submitti ng nominations for CUEs. Japan indicated in correspondence and during the OEWG in Bangkok, Thailand, that it plans to phase out all preplant soil uses of MB by 2013.

Changes made to nominated amounts and MBTOC recommendations with respect to the interim report of May 2008 can be found in Table 3.5 and 3.6 below and are

described in detail in textboxe s included in Table 4.5 and 5.1.

Table 3.5. Changes occurring to nominated and recommended amounts of MB for soils preplant uses after th e May 2008 interim report.

Party CUN Initial

nomination by the Party Interim

MBTOC

recommenda

tion Revised

nomination by the Party

after the

28 th 

### OEWG* Final MBTOC

recommend

ation

Cucumber 34.10 23.00 34.10 30.69 Peppers 81.10 54.37 81.10 72.99

Melons 90.80 61.00 90.80 81.72 Japan

Watermelons 15.40 14.50 15.40 14.50

TOTAL 221.40 152.87 221.40 199.90

Cucurbits ** 340.405 266.199 340.405 302.974 Peppers 658.952 457.299 463.282 463.282

Ornamentals 111.391 92.912 95.204 84.617 Strawberry fruit 1191.815 998.063 1103.422 1007.477 United

States

Tomatoes 994.582 704.715 737.584 737.584

TOTAL 3297.145 2519.188 2739.897 2595.934 * Nominated amounts for Japan did not change

** Revised nominated amounts for US cucurbits did not change since iodomethane is not registered for this crop



## Table 3.6. Changes occurring to nominated and recommended MB for postharvest uses after the May 2008 in terim report (tonnes)

Party CUN Initial

nomination by the Party Interim

MBTOC

recommendati

on Revised nomination by the Party after

the 28 th



### OEWG* Final

MBTOC

recommend

ation

Australia Rice 7.82 NR 7.82 6.65

Canada Pasta 6.067 1.9 4.74 4.74

Canada Flour 22.878 U 22.878 22.878

Mills * 191.993 187.534 173.023 173.023

United

States Commodities 43.007 1.9 U, NR 19.242 19.242



## * Amounts changed for USA Mills and Processors corrected errors, not re-evaluation.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 13 MBTOC has sometimes recommended quantities of MB for 2009 or 2010 which are

different from those nominated. Grounds us ed for these recommendations are given in

detail after the relevant CUNs in Tables 5.1 and 4.5. The adjustments for preplant soils use follow the presumptions given in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in D ecision XVI/4, Parties, among other things, specifically requested that MB TOC explicitly state the specific basis for the Party’s economic statement relating to CUNs. Tables 5.1 and 4.5 provide this information for each CUN. This information was prepared by MBTOC economists.

In general, CUNs resulted mainly from th e following issues: regulat ory restrictions on alternatives, scale-up of alte rnatives, economic issues and, to a much smaller degree, the technical unavailability of alternatives. This was as in the previous two years of CUNs. For the most part, t echnical alternatives exist. Additionally, MBTOC notes that some Parties continue to struggle with the ability to adapt previously identified alternatives to their circumstances, within their definition of economic feasibility.

3.7. Critical Use Nominations Review

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2008, as previously, both MBTOC subcommittees applied the standards containe d in Annex I of the final report of 16 MOP, and, where relevant, the standard pr esumptions given below. In particular MBTOC sought to provide cons istent treatment of CUNs within and between Parties while at the same time taking loca l circumstances into consideration.

In evaluating the CUNs for soil treatments, MBTOC assumed that a technically feasible alternative to MB would need to provide sufficient pest and/or weed control for continued production of that crop to existing market standards.

MBTOC evaluation of CUNs for preplant soil use relating to production of strawberries, tomatoes and some other crops was assisted by information provided by a large number of published studies on MB alte rnatives and by a meta-analysis of over 100 potential alternatives (Por ter, 2006). The published studies assisted in providing additional transparency to MBTOC evaluations , as requested by the Parties in Decision XV/4. MBTOC also used information on the suitability of alternatives for a nomination by considering the commercial adoption of alte rnatives in regions nominated for CUNs.

Further, adoption in regions with similar cl imatic zone and cropping practices was used as an indication of the feasibility (technical and economic) of an alternative in a similar region. For example for preplant soil uses of MB, 1,3-dichloropropene/chloropicrin (1,3-D/Pic), metham sodium alone or in comb ination with Pic, dazomet, substrates and

the use of resistant va rieties and grafted plants (for so lanaceous crops, melons and other cucurbits) have been adopted to replace MB for a range of crops in industries applying for CUNs and in many regions where MB was once used.

For commodity and structural applicati ons, it was assumed th at technically and economically feasible alternatives would provi de disinfestation to a level that met the objectives of a MB treatment, e.g. meeting infestation standards in finished product from a mill, while ensuring the costs were ec onomically feasible in the context of that nomination, to the extent that could be determined.

## 14 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Unless otherwise indicated, the most r ecent CUE approved by the Parties for a particular CUN was used as baseline for consideration of continuing nominations.

The standard presumptions, used by MBTO C to assess nominations, are given in the chapters ahead.

3.8 Disclosure of Interest

As in the past, all MBTOC members have prep ared disclosure of in terest forms relating specifically to their level of national, re gional or enterprise involvement for the 2008 CUN process, according to a standardised fo rmat developed by TEAP. The Disclosure

of Interest declarations are found in Annex VII at the end of this report. As in previous rounds, some members withdrew from a pa rticular CUN assessment or only provided technical advice on request for those nominatio ns where a potential conflict of interest

was declared.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 15 

# 4. MBTOC Soils: Final Evalua tions of 2008 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

4.1 Summary of outcomes

In the 2008 round, 31 CUNs were submitted for soil uses, 12 for 2009 and 19 for 2010.

Interim recommendations were made on all nominations of 697.048 tonnes for 2009 and 3318.559 tonnes for 2010. Two Parties, however, after consideration of

information in its interim recommendations and information from bilateral discussions at the OEWG, requested further review of their nominations and provided further

information to MBTOC-S. The United States revised total nominated amounts for soil uses from 3722.230 tonnes to 3164.982, by reduci ng the nominations for four sectors: tomatoes, strawberries, ornamentals and pe ppers. These nominations took account of the reregistration of IM in 45 States, includi ng the recent registration in Florida. This reduced the total nominated amount by Part ies for soil uses by 673.948 tonnes in 2010. Similarly, after the OEWG Japan sent new in formation that required a reassessment of four CUNs - cucumbers, peppers, melons and watermelons.

In its final assessment, MBTOC-S has recommended a total of 608.454 tonnes for 2009

and a revised total amount of 3297.800 tonne s for 2010. After the revised nominations

or new information were received from the USA and Japan, an amount of 88.594 tonnes

was not recommended for 2009 for Israel , and 187.534 tonnes not recommended for 2010 for USA and Japanese nominations.

MBTOC accepted the MB dosage rates subm itted by the USA delegation and did not apply new standard presumptions for use with barrier films and MB/Pic formulations in this round for the USA nominations. Additionally, Japan submitted information to substantiate a potential rate of transition to alternatives that was considerably less than what MBTOC originally recommended. Althoug h this does not appear to change the intention of Japan to complete phase out by 2013, MBTOC is recommending a greater

transition rate as it considers alternatives are available and can be adopted for a larger portion of the nomination by 2010 than those indicated by Japan.

Table 4. 1a Summary of MBTOC S fina l recommendations for 2009 and 2010 by country for CUNs received in 2008 for prepla nt soil use of methyl bromide (tonnes)

CUE approved at

MOP 19 CUN for 2009 and 2010 MBTOC-S Final

Recommendation Country

2008 2009 2009 2010 2009 2010

Australia 29.790 29.790 29.790

Canada 7.462 7.462 7.462

EC 244.146

Israel 858.560 697.048 608.454 Japan 299.580 283.100 261.6

USA 3851.329 3164.982* 2998.948

Total 1102.706 4188.161 697.048 3485.298 608.454 3297.8
* The number shown is the revised nomination by USA after the 28 th 

### OEWG.

## 16 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Table 4.1b Summary of the amo unts approved by Parties at 17 th 

## MOP for 2009, and MBTOC S recommendations (in square br ackets) for CUE’s for preplant uses of MB (tonnes) for 2009 and 2010 submitted in the 2008 round.

Years Country and Sector 2009 2010

1. Australia

1. Strawberry runners 29.790 [29.790]

2. Canada 1. Strawberry runners 7.462 [7.462]

3. Israel

1. Broomrape 2. Cut flowers & bulbs protected 3. Cut flowers open field 4. Melon protected & open field

5. Potato 6. Strawberry fruit protected 7. Strawberry runners 8. Sweet potatoes

TOTAL [125.000] [85.431] [34.698] [87.500] [75.500] [77.750] [28.075] [95.000] [608.454] ----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

4. Japan

1. Cucumber 2. Ginger open field 3. Ginger protected

4. Melon 5. Pepper green & hot

6. Watermelon

TOTAL 34.300

63.056

8.325

91.100

81.149

21.650

299.580 [30.690] [53.400] [8.300] [81.720] [72.990] [14.500] [261.600]

5. USA

1. Curcubits 2. Eggplants (field) 3. Forestry nursery 4. Nurseries stock: fruits, nuts & flowers 5. Orchard replant

6. Ornamentals 7. Pepper (field) 8. Strawberry (field) 9. Strawberry runners 10. Sweet potatoes 11. Tomatoes (field)

TOTAL 407.091

48.691

122.060

25.326

292.756

107.136

548.984 1,269.321

7.944

18.144 1,003.876 3,851.329 [302.974] [32.820] [117.826] [17.363] [215.800] [84.617] [463.282] [1,007.477] [4.690] [14.515] [737.584] [2,998.948]



## 4.2. Issues related to CUN Assessment for Preplant Soil Use

In general, CUNs for preplant soil use of MB resulted mainly from the following issues: regulatory restrictions on one or two specific alternatives, adoption times to implement alternatives, and economic infeas ibility of some key technical alternatives, such as the

use of methods which avoid the need fo r MB, i.e. use of grafted plants.

Key issues which assisted MB reductions and also affected the need for MB in the 2008 round were i) a new registration of iodometh ane (= methyl iodide) in the USA, which

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 17 has now been extended to the state of Fl orida ii) regulations on key alternatives, particularly 1,3-D township caps and buffe r zones on 1,3-D, metham sodium and Pic used alone or in mixtures (iii) restrictions on use of high rates of Pic (greater than 200 kg/ha (20 g/m 2 

## )) in some counties of California, iv) l ack of effective alternative controls for nutsedge, and v) lack of studies in specifi c sectors i.e. orchard replant, and nursery

industries.

Unusually large buffer zone restrictions on fu migant alternatives, particularly limit their adoption, especially in Israel . MBTOC urges Parties to consider review of these regulations in view of the ability of ba rrier films to reduce dose rates of MB and

alternatives and associated emissions. As in the previous round, Parties have found alternatives more difficult to adopt for pr opagation materials, such as strawberry runners and nurseries, however the lack or research studies provided with CUNs has

also led to difficulties in assessment as thes e CUNs. MBTOC considers that several of these do not to fully satisfy the requirement s of Decision IX/6. Th e impact of current reviews of VOC emissions in California may also have a major impact on MB use and

the use of alternatives in California in fu ture nominations. The registration of a key alternative, 1,3-D/Pic is uncertain in Israel. In addition to the r ecent registration of IM in the USA, recent permits for IM use for commercial scale trials in Australia look promising for its uptake and commercial re gistration in this c ountry and all other countries apply for CUEs for preplant soil of MB (Japan, Israel), except Canada.

MBTOC also notes that a larg e proportion of MB has been nominated for uses where regulations or legislation prevent reductions of MB dosage. For many uses, the mandatory use of MB is specified at a hi gh dosage for either treatment of certified propagation material or because bans are imposed on the use of barrier films which otherwise could have reduced the MB dosag e rate. Also regulations on the use of alternatives are preventing th eir uptake for a substantial proportion of the remaining CUNs for preplant soil use. MBTOC urges th e Parties to align their local policies and regulations with internationally accepted methodologies and to allow use of MB

alternatives that lie within the Montreal Protocol’s goals.

In this round, MBTOC has sometimes s uggested quantities of MB for 2009 or 2010

different from those nominated. Grounds us ed for these changes are given in detail

after the relevant CUNs in Table 4.5. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 below, unless indicated otherwise.

4.2.1. Registration of alternatives for preplant uses - Decision Ex I/4 (9i) and (9j)

Decision Ex. I/4 (9i) requires MBTOC “ To report annually on the status of reregistration and review of meth yl bromide uses for the appl ications reflected in the critical-use exemptions, including any info rmation on health effects and environmental acceptability” . Further, Decision Ex I/4 (9j) requires MBTOC “ To report annually on the status of registration of alternatives and substitutes for methyl bromide, with particular emphasis on possible regulatory ac tions that will increase or decrease dependence on methyl bromide”.

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents for use of MB, Pic, MS, and dazomet for preplant soil fumigation were completed in the USA on July 15, 2008, with

## 18 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## a comment period allowed until 30 October. Final decisions ar e scheduled to be available in 2009. New safety measures such as buffer zones to protect bystanders, reduced application rates, h ealth protection measures for workers are required in the RED. 1,3-D, which was included in the fu migant cluster for comparative purposes only, completed reregistration in the U.S. in 1998, and no further mitigation is expected

at this time.

Iodomethane (IM), a major alternative to MB, has recently been registered in 45 states in the United States including Florida for field-grown ornamentals, peppers,

strawberries and tomatoes. Trials with IM co ntinue being conducted in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Morocco, South Africa, Israel, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Brazil, Mexico and Chile and the registration pro cess is proceeding in most other countries applying for CUEs beside other states in th e USA including Australi a, Israel and Japan. To ensure that the mitigation measures for IM will be consistent with the measures being required for the other fumigants, the label requirements are presently being reexamined in the USA. 1,3-dichloropropene , may be subject to similar provisions when the soil fumigants are ev aluated together again in 2013.

The EC has further reported that, “decisi ons are expected in 2008 for MB, metham sodium and dazomet. 1,3-D was reviewed on an earlier timetable in the EC. It will be

excluded from Annex I to Directive 91/ 414/EEC, which lists active substances authorised for incorporation in plant prot ection products. Member States may grant a period of grace, which shall expire by 20 March 2009. Recognising the role of 1,3-D as an alternative to MB, and to achieve the objec tives of the Montreal Protocol, this grace period may be extended by a further 18 months , pending a review to assess the concrete impact of its withdrawal on the use of MB . The manufacturer of 1,3-D has compiled a

dossier of additional technical information and intends to apply for re-registration of 1,3-D under Directive 91/414 (Dow AgroScie nces 2007)”. (EC Management Strategy, 2008)

A number of other chemicals which may be alternatives to MB are now in the registration process in specifi c countries, including dimet hyl disulphide (DMDS) in Europe and the USA (for cantaloupe, cucu mber, squash, other cucurbits, peppers, strawberry, tomato) and ethane dinitrile (EDN) in Australia, dazomet in the USA (for strawberry and tomato), and various herbicides.

4.2.2. Update on rates of adoption of alternatives for prepl ant uses - Decision XIX/9

As of the 2008 round, Decision XIX/9 para. 3 requests: ‘ the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel to ensure t hat recent findings with re gard to the adoption rate of alternatives are annually updated and reported to the Parties in its first report of each year and inform the work of the Panel ’.

Technical alternatives exist for almost all uses requesting CUNs, but uptake of

alternatives varies between countries, crops and the pest pressure. In general similar alternatives are being adopted by the same sectors throughout a number of countries, although the rate of adoption has varied depending on regulations on their use, differences in registration between countries and other market forces. In this round as in previous rounds of CUNs, MBTOC has reco gnised that time is needed to effect

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 19 phase-in of alternatives and has accepted this as a reason able technical argument for lack of availability to the e nd user sensu Decision IX/6.

Where possible, data is included in this re port showing act ual rates of adoption in key regions which have phased out MB recently. In particular, recent adoption data from the EC Management Strategy (2008) has been included to shows rate s of transition to alternatives by several sectors in the Member States (A ppendix IV). In addition, past adoption rates of alternatives in many countries is pres ented in previous Assessment Reports (MBTOC 2007). Figures 3.1 – 3.2 in this report show the apparent reduction rates for MB use achieved by many Parties in a number of key sectors. As noted above, true reduction and adoption rates may vary from the rate of change of CUN/CUE

because of factors such as use of stocks or transfer of approved MB between categories The CUN reviews presented in Table 4.5 al so provide detail of some of the key

alternatives that Parties have and shoul d consider to further replace MB for the remaining uses.

For several major preplant soil uses, adopti on data from other regions has shown that where industries have previously been h eavily dependent on MB, e.g. strawberries, tomatoes and other vegetable crops (e.g. Au stralia, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, New Zealand) almost complete adoption of alternative technologies (especially those requiring similar application t echnologies) has been achieve d in a 3 to 4 year period. For instance, a full list of a doption rates obtained w ithin the EC is shown in Annex IV. These regions have similar pests complexes to those requesting CUNs, but may have different regulatory issues. Possible adopti on rates for transition to alternatives for preplant soil uses have also been supplied recently by Japan in their National Action Plan. This plan indicates the expected rate s of transition to alternatives to assist complete phase out of MB by 2013.

Further guidance from the Parties, giving e xpected rates of adoption of alternatives following registration, would assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future.

4.2.3. Sustainable alternatives for preplant uses

In a large proportion of CUNs, the most current ly appropriate altern atives are chemical fumigant alternatives, which themselves, like MB, have issues relate d to their long term suitability for use. In both the EC and the USA in particular, MB and most other fumigants have been subjected to reviews that could affect future regulations over their use for preplant soil fumigation. For prep lant soil uses of MB, the regulatory restrictions on 1,3-dichloroprope ne and chloropicrin are pr eventing further adoption of these products in the USA, particularly California and this is putting pressure on

industries to retain MB.

MBTOC urges Parties to consider the long te rm sustainability of treatments adopted as alternatives to MB, to continue to adopt e nvironmentally sustainable and safe chemical

and non-chemical alternatives 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 alternatives that are ‘acc eptable from the standpoint of environment and health’. MBTOC has consistently interpreted this to mean alternatives

## 20 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## that are registered or allowed by the releva nt regulatory authorities in individual CUN regions, without reference to sustainability.

4.2.4. Frequency of allowed MB use for preplant uses

In the CUN round for 2008, reductions in MB for preplant (soil) uses could be achieved in some nominations, where effective alte rnatives were identified, by reducing the frequency of MB fumigations. Instead of a ll fumigation being made with MB, potential exists to reduce frequency by rotation with ot her methods (i.e. fumi gants) in order to reduce MB use to every 2 nd 

## or 3 rd 

## year. In some production systems, MB is already used only every 3 rd 

## or 4 th 

## year as a result of uptake of alternative strategies and crop

rotations.

Noting this effort, MBTOC has not automatica lly concluded that episodes when MB is not used mean a fully successful adoption of alternatives. There is no instruction from

Parties as to how to consider renewed CUNs in the future that result from a potential need for MB in the years where reduced fr equency of fumigation is to take place.

4.3. Economic feasibility of iodomethane (IM)

During the 2008 round of evaluations, IM receive d a federal registration in 45 states of the USA and awaits registration in just a fe w States, notably Calif ornia. Commercial adoption of IM has begun in the USA and the registration process is underway in

several other countries.

MBTOC considered the economic feasibility of IM in a partial budgeting analysis framework and determined that for many cr ops and locations, IM is an economically feasible alternative for preplant uses of MB. The cost for fumigant compounds is typically a relatively small sh are of total costs and variab le production costs. It is assumed that IM will exhibit equivalent economic efficacy to MB and no other costs will change. Equivalent economic efficacy means gross revenues (yield times price) remain the same. The key measures for assessing economic feasibility become the difference in per hectare fumiga nt material cost between IM and MB and the impact of this cost change on net revenues per hectare.

The increased cost reduces net revenue but generally by a small pe rcentage, reflecting the fumigants’ small shares of operating cost s, the small absolute cost for fumigant material, and the magnitude of net revenues pe r hectare seen with most crops currently using MB. After adjusting for dose rates exp ected to provide equi valent yields, IM/MB price ratios of 1.4 to 2.0 result in percentage changes in net revenue which can be very small (<2%) at high net revenues. At per hectare revenue incomes of $10,000, $50,000 and $100,000 the differences in variable cost fo r fumigant price differences between IM and MB (based on a fumigant price differe nce of $900/ha) are approximately 10%, 2% and 1% respectively. As the crop revenue pe r hectare price increases, the significance of the change in fumigant price decreases. Fig. 4.1 below illustra tes this relationship through an economic model (based on ‘synthetic data’):

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 21 Fig. 4.1. Economic feasibility of iodometh ane (IM) based on net revenue impact

Economic feasibility of IM based on net revenue impact

Net Revenue per ha with MB% Decrease in Net Revenue Increasing per ha cost

difference between MI and MB

Economically feasible Not Economically feasible



## The percent decrease in net re turns when adopting the more costly fumigant (IM) will generally be small, but there is a percentage change in net returns at which IM will not be considered an economically feasible alternative. However, MBTOC has not received any guidance regardi ng this percentage and there is no consensus on the level of economic impact that is considered the threshold between econom ically feasible and not economically feasible. The threshold is represented by the hor izontal line above the X axis. The chart further illustrates that, (a) The impact from the increase in fumigation costs from switching to IM is less important when the crop being produced has large net returns per hectare when using MB (b) As the absolute difference in fumigation cost between IM and MB increases, the percenta ge decrease in net re turns becomes more important (this is illustrated by moving outwa rd from one curve to another), (c) There are some cases where IM may not be economically feasible. This can result from large

absolute cost differences between IM and MB or a starting point of low net revenues so that the business cannot absorb the higher co sts, and (d) Application of IM via drip application may be cheaper than applicati on of MB via injection equipment and this would make the treatment more likely to be adopted at all net revenues.

4.4. Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities.

The tables below (Tables 4.2 and 4.3) provide the standard presumptions applied by

MBTOC Soils for this round of CUNs. Thes e standard presumptions were first proposed in the MBTOC report of October 2005 and were presented to the Parties at

17 th 

## MOP. Studies and reports to support them appear in Annex III. They were revised

for some sectors after consider ation by the Parties at the 19 th 

## MOP. The rates and practices adopted by MBTOC as standard presumptions are based on maximum rates

## 22 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## considered acceptable by publis hed literature and actual co mmercial practice. Actual dosage rate of MB in MB/Pic formul ations is shown in Table 4.4 below.

As in the evaluations in previous years, MBTOC considered reductions to quantities of MB in particular nominations to a standa rd rate per treated area where technical evidence supported its use (s ee Annex III). MBTOC considered the maximum MB application rate for 98% MB to be either 250 or 350 kg/ha (25 or 35 g/m 2 

## ), in conjunction with low barrier permeability f ilms (e.g., VIF or equivalent), combined with extended exposure periods. One Pa rty has indicated that 250 kg/ha (25g/m 2 

## ) of 98:2 were effectively used in standard commercial applicatio n, especially on sandy

soils. MBTOC considers 98:2 formulations only necessary for CUE uses where other MB/Pic formulations are not registered or where regulations prescribe its use.

In cases where use of high chloropicrin-c ontaining mixtures (a pproximately MB:Pic 67:33 or 50:50 or lower) are considered f easible and barrier films, maximum dosage

rates of either 150 or 175 kg MB/ha (15.0 - 17.5 g/m 2 

## ) where nutsedge is the key pest and 125 or 150 kg/ha (12.5 - 15 g/m 2 

## ) for pathogens were considered for use as the maximum standard presumptions, unless th ere was a regulatory or technical reason indicated otherwise by the Party (see Table 4.2 below).

As a special case, MBTOC accepted a maximum rate of 200 kg/ ha (20 g/m 2 

## ) with barrier films for certified nursery production, unless regulations prescribed higher rates. However, Parties have indicated that rates of 200 kg/ha (20g/m 2 

## ) or less (Annex III) of

MB: Pic 50:50 were effective with barrier f ilms for production of ‘certified’ nursery

material.

The indicative rates used by MBTOC were maximum guideline rates, for the purpose of calculation only. MBTOC recognises that the actu al rate appropriate for a specific use may vary with local circumstances, soil cond itions and the target pest situation. Some

nominations were based on rates lowe r than these indicative rates.

During the bilateral meeting held in Alassio, the United States dele gation indicated that they were not able to conform to dosage rates suggested by MBTO C for vegetables and strawberries at present (s ee Table 4.3 below) as they did not have enough trial information to confirm their use for specific ci rcumstances. In view of the fact that the USA did not consider expe riences from other countries and sectors valid for extrapolation to USA circumstances, MB TOC considers it necessary to conduct a thorough review of research and experiences av ailable in the United States in relation to effective dosage rates of MB.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 23 Table 4.2. Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs for the 2008 round –

soil treatments.

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions

1. Dosage rates Maximum guidelin e rates for MB:Pic 98:2 25 to 35 g/m 2 with barrier films (VIF or equivalent);

for mixtures of MB/Pic 12.5 to 17.5 g MB/m 2 for pathogens and nutsedge respectively, under barrier films depending on the sector. 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, emission regulations on MB, or open field production of high health propagative material



## Table 4.3. Maximum dosage rates for preplant soil use of MB by sector used in the 2008 round (standard presumptions).

Maximum MB Dosage Rate (g/m 2 

## ) in MB/Pic mixtures considered

effective for: Film Type

Strawberries and Vegetables Nurseries* Orchard Replant Ornamentals

Barrier films -

Pathogens 12.5 15 15 15

Barrier films -

Nutsedge 15.0 17.5 17.5 17.5

No Barrier films – Pathogens 20 20 20 20

No Barrier films - Nut sedge 26 26 26 26



### * Maximum rate unless certification specifies otherwise

## 24 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 4.5. 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 concen trations of methyl bromide (e.g. MB/Pic 50:50 or less). These formulations are considered to be equally as effective in controlling soilborne pathogens as formulations containing hi gher quantities of methyl bromide (e.g. 98:2, 67:33) (e. g. Porter et al ., 1997; Melgarejo et al ., 2001; Lopez-Aranda et al ., 2003;

Santos et al ., 2007; Hamill et al., 2004; Carey and Godbehere, 2004; Gilreath and Santos, 2005e; Hanson et al., 2006). Where such formula tions are registered or otherwise permitted, non Article 5 countries have widely adopted formulations containing high proportions of Pi c in mixtures with MB to meet Montreal Protocol

restrictions Their use can be achieved with similar application machinery which allows co-injection of methyl bromide and chloropi crin or by use of premixed formulations. Consistent performance has been demonstrated with both barrier and non barrier films. Parties are urged to consider even lowe r dosage rates of MB by modifying MB/Pic mixtures used and adoption of barrier film s where regulations permit as the basis for

future CUNs. This includes ra tes as low as 75 kg/ha (75 g/m 2 

## ) in 250 kg/ha of 30:70 or 33:67 mixtures or 100 kg/ha (10 g/m 2 

## ) of MB in 250 kg/ha of 50:50 MB/Pic mixtures in conjunction with barrier films as these have shown similar effectiveness of higher rates of MB in 67:33 MB /Pic and much higher rates of 335 to 800 kg/ha of MB 98% with standard polyethylene.

Table 4.4. Actual dosage rates applied duri ng preplant fumigation when different rates and formulations of me thyl bromide/chloropicrin mi xtures are applied with and without barrier films. Rates of applica tion reflect standard commercial applications

rates.

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 16.8 12.5 7.5

200 19.6 13.4 10.0* 6.0

175 17.2 11.8 8.8 5.3
* Note: Trials from 1996 to 2007 (Annex III) show that a dosage of 10g/m 2 

### (e.g. MB/Pic 50:50 at 200kg/ha with LP Barrier Films) is technically feasible for many situations and equivalent to the standard dosage of >20g/m 2 

### using standard films

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 25 4.6. Use/Emission reduction technologies - Low permeability barrier films and dosage reduction

Decision IX/6 states in part that critical us es should be permitted only if ‘all technically and economically feasible step s have been taken to minimi se the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide’. Decision Ex.II/1 also mentions emission minimization techniques, request ing Parties “...to ensure, wherever methyl bromide is authorized for critical-use exemptions, the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barri er film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible.”

As in past rounds, MBTOC assessed CUNs where possible for reductions in MB application rates and deployment of MB em ission reduction technologies, such as use of LPBF, including VIF, or other appropriate sealing and emission control techniques including deep injection of MB, use of formulations with a lower proportion of MB and/ or reduced frequency of application.

The use of low permeability barrier films (i.e . VIF) or other techniques ensuring at least the same level of environmental protection is compulsory in the 27 member countries of the European Union (EC Regulation 2037/2000) . In other regions, LPBF films are considered technically feasible and larg e adoption has occurred, e.g. Israel and SE USA. In Florida the reported use of barrier films in vegetable crops has expanded to over 50,000 acres in 07/08 (Allen, pers. comm ., 2008). An exception to the use of

barrier films is the State of California in the USA where a regulation currently prevents use of VIF with MB (California Code of Re gulations Title 3 Sec tion 6450(e)), but not with the alternatives. This regulation ha s been set over concerns of possible worker exposure to MB when the film is removed or when seedlings are planted due to altered

flux rates of MB.

4.7. Use of disposable canisters of MB

One non Article 5 Party is still using sm all disposable canisters (i.e. 500 to 750g canisters) for application of MB for preplant soil use under plastic films under strict worker health guidelines. Canister applicati ons have been eliminat ed for soil use in all

other non Article 5 countries as this application is considered to be less efficient for the control of soilborne pathogens than other met hods. This treatment is considered to be more dangerous to workers than injection methods, because trained contractors are not generally involved in its applic ation. This practice is not considered as effective for pathogen control as use of MB /Pic mixtures and also can lead to high emissions of methyl bromide as the MB gas is released immediately beneath the plastic sheets. According to the Party, canisters are used because they provide small-scale farmers with an easy application method and the abil ity to apply targeted amounts of MB to small areas where injection machinery may be difficult to use. In this case, farmers are reported to use strict controls.

## 26 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 4.8. Metaanalysis update

In response to Decision XVI/5, which provide d financial support to MBTOC for expert

assistance with the assessment of the critical -use nominations, a sta tistical analysis or metaanalysis study was conducted to analyse me thyl bromide alternatives for pre-plant fumigation (Porter et al, 2006).

This report provides the Parties with a t echnical overview of results from published research from 1995 till 2005. It provided the st atistical best estimate of the relative effectiveness of the major ch emical alternatives to met hyl bromide as determined by analysis of information acro ss a large number of studies in different regions and under different pathogen pressures. Effectiveness was assessed by compari ng relative yield of the alternative to the respective methyl br omide/chloropicrin (MB/Pic) treatment. The study took account of both registered and unregistered products and concentrated on two major crops, strawberry fru it and tomatoes. Interpretation of the use of alternatives for other crops such as peppers, melons and other cucurbits, and eggplants can be made

with much of the informati on, particularly in the case of tomatoes where the target pathogens and weeds were relevant to th e outcomes for these other crops. The metaanalysis also includes a detailed asse ssment of the effect of alternatives for nutsedge under different inoculum level (or pest pressure) and the influence of low permeability barrier films across a range of regions and crops.

Analyses from strawberry fru it trials showed that a large number of alternatives used

alone or in various combinations had mean estimated yields which were within 5% of the estimated yield of the standard MB tr eatment (MB/Pic 67:33). Of these, a number of alternatives and MB/Pic formulations ( 50:50, 30:70) led to result s that were similar to MB/Pic 67:33. These included PicEC (c hloropicrin, Emulsifiable Concentrate), TC35EC (Telone C35 or 1,3-dichloroprope ne/chloropicrin), TC35 and TC35ECMNa (TC35 EC combined with metham sodium) and IM/Pic formulations (iodomethane/chloropicrin), which are under going registration in several countries.

Analyses from tomato trials showed that a ra nge of alternative treatments used alone or

in various combinations had mean estimated yields which were within 5% of the estimated yield of the standard met hyl bromide treatment (MB/Pic 67:33). While some of these treatments contained pebulate, a he rbicide which is not commercially available anymore, most treatments did not contain this particular pr oduct. Several treatments, PicMNa (chloropicrin combined with metham sodium), 1,3D/P ic in combination with a range of herbicides and MI60 (iodomethane/ch loropicrin), provided results similar to

MB/Pic 67:33.

Decision XIX/9 required MB TOC to report to the 28 th 

## OEWG an explanation of ”how its uses the metaanalysis in its work and to disclose to the Partie s a written explanation of any significant changes or deviations it in tends to make to that methodology before it undertakes any such change or deviation”

.

In response, MBTOC has incl uded a response in the inte rim report for 2008 and the following information for this final report. MBTOC uses the metaanalysis report as a guide to the relative effectiveness of many alternatives, together with many others obtained from scientific journals, conferen ce proceedings, published reports and others, to substantiate and support its recommendati ons. No change to this approach has been

made in this round.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 27 In response to specific requests from the USA in 2006 and 2007, MBTOC supplied further information to support the report, incl uding clarification of the process used in the metaanalysis and the inte rnational biometrical standard s used and a full set of information detailing which alternatives had been used and from what studies. In 2008, after further requests were made during the 28 th 

## OEWG, a teleconfer ence was organised on 8 August 2008 with the biometricians conducting the metaanalysis, MBTOC members and USA delegates to clarify que stions on statistical methods used and conclusions of the study. Details of this teleconference were provided to MBTOC

members and TEAP co-chairs for information. Further discussions and requests were made by the USA during the bilateral mee ting held in Alassio in September 2008.28October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportTable 4.5. Final evaluations of CUNs for preplant soil use submitted in 2008 for 2009 or 2010Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Australia Strawberryrunners35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 None - 29.790 29.790MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 29.790 tonnes for this use in 2010. Thekey pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi(Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Verticillium) and weeds (S. arvensis, Agrostis tenuis, Raphanusspp, Poa annua, Cyperusspp). The CUN states thatMB/Pic 50:50 at a MB dose of 25 g/m2is required to meet certificationstandards. The Parties request exceedsMBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2butthis rate is not currently registered. The Party is conductingfield scale testing to confirm earlier small scale plot trialswhich demonstrated no reduction inefficacy at a MB rate of 12.5 g/m2. If successful, adoption could occur in 2010. The Party states that the most promising alternative, iodomethane/chloropicrinhas been demonstrated in small scale trials to compare with theefficacy to MB/Pic. Commercial scale-up trials are in progressand could lead to registration in2009/2010. MBTOC encourages the Party to (1) expedite the registration and use of the MB/Pic 50:50 formulation with a MB rate of 12.5 g/m2with barrier filmsand (2) to expedite the registration of the iodomethane/Pic (MI/Pic), and (3) to continue the pilot testing of soilless production of the foundation generation ofrunners with commercial adoption possible in 2011.MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based oneconomic arguments. Economic statements provided in CUN.CUNstates that the Victoria Strawberry Industry Certification Authority is developing a two-year research program to investigate the feasibility of moving to soillessproduction of foundation generation runners,but notes that, while this may be feasiblefor the tens of thousands of runners for the foundation generation, it willnot be feasible for the scaled up production ofmillions of certified runners required for the industry as a whole. Research onalternatives in this latter respect iscontinuing. No economic arguments or data are provided.Canada Strawberryrunners(PEI)6.840 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 None - 7.462 7.462MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a CUE of 7.462 tonnes for 2010. The nomination states that MB/Pic 67:33 ata dose of 500 kg/ha (50 g/m2)is required to meet the certification standards for strawberry runners, whichexceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 200 kg/ha(20 g/m2); however thelower rate is not currently registered. PMRA requires data thatdemonstrates that the reduced rate is efficacious with LPBF before registering the lower rate.MBTOC notes that no progress has been made in more than three years on testing with LPBF and expects that future nominations will show reports of trials inorder to satisfy the criteria of Decision IX/6. The Party has attempted to replace MB with 1,3-D, but 1,3-D was banned in January 2003 due to groundwatercontamination. The permit for Chloropicrin 100 is still pendingapproval at PEI, even though Canada registered Pic in 2007. Nostudies on other potentialalternative fumigants, such as Pic, DMDS, MI/Pic have taken place . MBTOC expects that future nominations will also demonstratesignificant progress withkey alternatives. MBTOC encourages the Party (1) to finalize thepermits necessary for use of chloropicrin and dazomet, (2) implement the use of LPBF whichare currently used worldwide and (3) in the absence of an effective alternative becoming available, conduct the necessary trials to support a lower applicationrate of MB to conform with MBTOC’s standard presumption, (4) provide assessment on the suitability of soilless cultures for atleast part of the productioncycle.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:No economic arguments or data providedOctober 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report29Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Israel Broomrape None None 250.000250.000 None 250.000 125.000MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 125 tonnes for 2009, which represents 50% ofthe requested amount . The Party has informed MBTOC, thatthe project for 2010 has been reduced by 50% (from 1000 ha to 500 ha). The Party reports that results of field trials with 1,3-D in sequence with methamsodium are promising and that registration is expected in 2009.If 1,3-D is registered, MBTOCanticipates thatthere will be uptake of this alternative andappropriate reduction in the use of MB. The nomination is eradication of broomrape andland rehabilitation of 500 ha in the Golan Heights. The recommendedCUE is based on a dose of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of MB:Pic 98:2 using LPBF. MB will be used only once inthis region and the treatmentis expected to bring theweed population below the disease threshold allowing for adoption of other alternatives. The Party has identified some alternatives for controlling lowinfestations ofOrobanche(e.g. solarization) but they are considered notadequate for controlling severe infestations ofO. aegyptiaca. In 2007, five field trialswere carried out with sulfosulfuron, imazapic, and imazomox. MBTOCacknowledges that a registration for chloropicrin is being considered in Israel and thatthis would possibly allow for lower dosages of MB to be usedfor Orobanche in the absence ofother effective alternatives.MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:CUN arguesthat broomrape infestation is being aggravated by the phase out of MB, as all crop-specific registered MB alternatives have a narrower range of activity andlower crop-specific efficacy than MB. This is also true for agrotechnical means and long-term fallow cropping which in practiceand in economic terms do notcope with the long-term vitality of broomrape seeds and their gradual germination mechanism. CUN also states that biological control of broomrape with eitherthe aid of a parasitic fly or with Fusaria do not provide economic answers for the problem. No economic data are provided.Israel Cut flowersbulbsprotected303.000 240.000 220.185 114.450None 113.821 85 .431MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 85.431 tonnes for this use in 2009.The nomination is for a variety of cut flowersproduced under cover, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperusin particular), nematodes (root-knot but also ectoparasites such asLongidorus) and fungi.MBTOC does not consider MB essential for the control of ectoparasiticnematodes. MBTOC does not recommend the use of 1.64 t forfumigating substratesused in rose production as alternatives such as steam are efficientfor this use. Overall, there is very little change from nominations submitted in previousyears, particularly in 2007. Phase-out efforts are still based ontransitional measures - LPBF barrier films with reduced rates. In spite of this, registration ofcertain alternatives, such as metham sodium and 1,3-D, has nowexpanded to include additional flower types. More expansion of registration is expected thisyear. Substrate production protocols are now available for many of the flowers presently treated with MB (Bar-Yosefet al, 2001; Gullinoet al, 2003; Savvasand Passan, 2002; Urrestarazu, 2004; Urrestarazu, 2005). The recommended amount is based on a 25% transition rate applied for adoption of chemicalalternatives in those species where the nomination states these are now registered. In keeping with the 2007 recommendation a further 25% transition rate hasbeen applied to those flowers where substrate production is possible (lilium, calla lilies, gerberas and carnations outside theGhaza area). Additionally, MBTOChas adjusted MB dosages used for carnations grown in Ghaza (from the requested 50 g/m2to the standard presumption of 35 g/m2). MBTOC is aware thatcarnation cultivars resistant to fusariumwilt are available, commercially used and accepted by international markets (Gullinoand Garibaldi, 2007)).MBTOC comments on economics 2008:CUN argues that nutsedge causes heavy economic losses notonly under outdoor conditionsbut in greenhouses aswell, despite the fact that shade reduces its activity. No economic data are provided.30October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Israel Cut flowersopen field77.000 67.000 74.540 44.750None 42.777 34.698MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 34.698 tonnes for this use in2009. Overall, there is very little change from nominationssubmitted in previous years, particularlyin 2007. Phase-out efforts are still basedon transitional measures - barrier films with reduced rates of fumigants. Thenomination is for open field production of cut flowers, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperusspp in particular) and nematodes (root-knot but alsoectoparasites such as Longidorus) and fungi. MBTOC does not consider MB necessaryfor controlling ectoparasitic nematodes. Lackof registration of keyalternatives on flowers such as 1,3-D+Pic, dazomet and methamsodium, continue to be the major constraints affecting substitution of MB at this time. MBformulations with higher chloropicrin content are also not registered. In spite of this, registration of metham sodium and 1,3-D has expanded and now includesadditional flower types. More expansion of registration is expected this year. In keeping with the 2007 recommendation, a 25% transition rate has been appliedto the nominated amount to allow for adoption of alternatives,including chemicals and solarization, which is being adopted successfully. The reduction has notbeen applied to the 10.462 t requested for nurseries of geophytes where high health plant material needs to be produced, although no certification issues areinvolved.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:CUN states that nutsedge is a major problem of the flower industry on outdoorcrops and on geophytes, specifically.It causes heavy economic losses under outdoor conditions. CUN alsoargues that MB substitutionand phase out brought about theappearance of new andminor pests e.g. the free-livingnematode Longidorus spp. became a major economicproblem of Aster, Solidago and Lilly. No economic data are provided.Israel Melon -protectedand field125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500None 87.500 87.500MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 87.5 tonnes for this use in 2009. Monosporascus cannonballus is the key pathogen in the Arava Valley. Therequested amount at a rate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB under barrier films (LDPF) complieswith MBTOC ́s standard presumptions. However, MBTOCnotes that 70:30 MB/PIC mixtures are registered for strawberry, potatoes, cucumber, eggplant, peppers, tomatoes, gerbera, gladiola, roses, and avocado, butnot for melon. MBTOC understands that formulations with more chloropicrin (MB/Pic 67:33, 50:50) could be as effective as the currently used and urges theParty to make the necessary efforts to assess this situation underthe criteria of Dec.IX/6.MBTOC notes that alternatives are alreadyused for 100% of the fall melons grown in the Arava valley including Telodrip, methamsodium, dazomet,solarization, Formaldehyde+MS, Telopic (only in the southern Arava). The CUN is solely for the spring crop as the alternativesseem not feasible because theplant back time is short (2-4 weeks). MBTOC visited the areaand was shown experiments testing a strategy based on fumigation and solarization in thesummer before the fall crop, followed by sanitation with MS atthe end of fall crop. The third component is repeated application of the fungicide, azoxystrobin(still not registered) as a soil drench during the spring crop.Results are promising so far. Another material tested to prevent possible accelerated degradationin soil is the application of the fungicideprochloras. The Party is requested to submit information regarding progress in future nominations.MBTOC notes that Pic and MB/Pic mixturesand the fungicide, fludioxonil, are effectively used for Monosporascus in other countries under similar conditions(e.g. Stangheliniet al. 2003; Martyn 2002).October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report31Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2008:CUN concludes that presently Basamid is not feasible economically because the price of Basamid has increased,and because of waiting period constraints. Economic data provided show that the price ofBasamid is lower than that of MB, butthat the gross margin withBasamid 300kg and Basamid 1200 kg is negative, while for Basamid 600 kg it is significantly lower.CUN also points out that a new approach for inoculum reduction ofMonosporascus was developed in the area. It consists of MS applied at lower rates at cropend to kill off the roots of the harvestedfall melons and subsequently the resting structures of Monosporascus. This practiceis effective at infestation levels ofup to 20% and became a routine practice applied on the harvested fall crop prior to the spring crop. It is cost effective sincethe rate is low (150l/ha) and thereturn high.Israel Potato 239.000 165.000 137.50093.750 None 75.000 75.000MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a CUE for 75 tonnes for this use in 2009. Potatoes are produced in a small cultivable area of the Sharon andin the Negev regions. The nomination is only in the Sharon (10%of total cultivated area) where tuber yield and quality are impacted byRhizocotnia solani,Verticillium dahliae,Streptomyces scabies(common scab),Spongospora subterranea(powdery scab),Orobanchespp. (broomrape),Cyperus rotundus(purple nutsedge), and volunteer plants that carry viral diseases (PVY). The Party has made a 20% reduction with respect to theamount approved by the MOPfor 2008. The dosage rate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of MB 98:2 is in accordance with the standard presumptions for hot gas under barrier films in sandy soil. TheParty identified that 300 of 15,000 ha are located in highly populated areas where winter production occurs and pathogens are high and regulatory constraintsare in place for feasible alternatives such as 1,3-D + Pic (61:35)which as a result of buffer zones prohibit their use. The Party indicates that effective controlalternatives are in development for the pest complexes and thatthey are transitioning to these. The CUN indicates that development of new injection machineis underway in the Sharon. MBTOC notes thatthere are effective alternatives but that their use is affected by buffer zones, which are larger than in othercountries. MBTOC urges that Party to consider review of these buffers in the light of use with barrier films.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:CUN argues that, because the registered alternatives do notcover the broad spectrum activity of MB, thus giventhe high pathogen populations of the area,their application would require the addition of complementary compounds, with self-explanatory environmental andeconomic implications. Noeconomic data are provided32October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Israel SeedProduction56.000 28.000 None None None 22.400 NRMBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC does not recommend any MB for this use in 2009. The application is similar to the nominations presented in 2004 and2005 for 2005 and 2006 use: same area, same constraints and almostthe same requested quantity in2009 (22.4t) as the approvedquantity in 2006 (28t). Noprogress has been made during these last 4 years. The same experiments and results are presented.In the 2004 nomination, Israel reported the formation ofa task force to draw up a new strategy forthe industry. No results have been obtained by this task force. The Party states that seeds must meet certificationstandards but many specified pathogenswhich are the targets of MB fumigation are not carried on seeds (e.g.Verticillium dahliae, Rhizoctonia, Pythium, etc.).Due to lack of a research program, the Party has not provided an explanation for thelack of control with chemical alternativessuch as chloropicrin , 1,3-D,formalin or MITC generating compounds or non chemical alternativese.g. grafting (which is considered by the Party only for water melon but adopted in manyother countries for other vegetables particularly tomato), resistant varieties and steam. In addition, soil less culture is considered by the Party to be a suitablealternative and is in use for 20% of thecrop. The Party considers soilless culture economically feasible only for solanaceouscrops, although no clarification isgiven as to why. No information is given on the acreages covered by the solanaceous crops and also on the areas fumigated from2002 to 2007. The Partyreports that the quantitative croplosses caused by soil-borne pests are not themain problem, but the seed quality is the mainissue. In the nomination, noresults on the seed health have been reported. The Party identifies economic constraints as thebarrier to adoption of the non-chemical alternative, but noeconomic analysis is provided. In all other Mediterranean countries with similar climate, vegetable seeds are produced withoutMB. In the European countries,e.g. Holland, some seed companies are producing vegetable seeds without MB by the adoption of alternatives.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:CUN argues that growing vegetable seeds requires that the seeds be completely clean, much as has been arguedin the case of strawberry runners. CUN argues that this is a declining industry in Israel because of lower costs of labor in countries such as Thailand and Chinabut does not state whether MB is used in those countries for thispurpose. CUN argues that moving to soilless culture is not economically feasible. Noeconomic data are providedOctober 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report33Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Israel Strawberryfruit -protected(Sharon andGhaza)196.000 196.000 93.000105.960 None 52.250(Sharononly)77.750(Sharon andGaza)MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 42.75 tonnes for Sharon anda reduced amount of 35 tonnesfor Ghaza, totalling 77.75tonnes for these uses in 2009. MBTOC has adjusted the nominationfor Sharon based on information from the Party that out of thetotal of 380 ha, 25% (i.e. 95ha) is grown on new land (not requiring MB) and an additional 30% (i.e. 114 ha) of the cultivatedarea is expected to apply MBalternatives. This leaves 171 hafor MB use totalling 42.75 t. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination to theGhaza strip to conform withits standard presumption of350 kg/ha (35 g/m2) usedwith barrier films. The key pests affecting strawberry fruit in Israel are fungi (Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acutatum, Macrophomina phaseolina,Verticillium dahliae, Fusariumspp.), nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla), and weeds (Cyperus rotundus, purple nutsedge). The Party states that buffer zones(250 m) restrict the use of key alternatives1,3-D/Pic and MB/PIC 70:30. The Party confirmed that the existing buffers were 250 m for PIC,100 m for 1,3-D and100 m for metam sodium. MBTOC urges the Party to consider whetherthe widespread use of LPBF might reduce the buffers on thesealternatives. MBTOCwould also like to see data on the technical feasibility of MI/Picand DMDS on strawberries. MBTOC also urges the Party to consider registration of otheralternatives to MB (metham sodium 1,3-D) as well as other formulations of MB/Pic (e.g. 50:50) toassist further reductions in the use of MB. The CUN statesthat metham sodium showed promising results in the control ofMacrophomina phaseolina, but these trials did not lead to aregistration of metham sodium onstrawberries. Substrates have been used on a small area in thisCUN, but the Party states thatfurther uptake is limited by cost, and commercial scale testingare expected in 2010. Detailed economic information on the suitability of such systems is necessary. MBTOC encourages the applicant to considerevaluation and adoption of low-cost substrate systems which are used in similar circumstances in other regions, including warmclimates (Mutituet al. 2006;Vos and Bridge, 2006; MBTOC, 2007; Sonneveld, 2004; Lieten, 2004).MBTOC comments on economics 2008:CUN states that Dazomet is not registered, and that Telone is not available because the supplier has not put it onthe market. CUN provides a Table thatshows that these alternatives deliver a higher net farm income than MB.34October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Israel Strawberryrunners(Sharon andGhaza)None None 0.000 31.900 None 15.800(Sharononly)28.075(Sharon andGaza)MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 28.075 tonnes for this usein 2009 (12.25 t for Ghaza Strip and 15.825 t for Sharon,Israel). The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Rhizotonia solani, Verticillium dahliae, Fusarium, Phytophthora, Sclerotiniasclerotiorum, Macrophomina phasoeolina), root knot nematodes and purple nutsedge. The Party stated that MB98:2 at a rate of 500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) withstandard polyethylene films and 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) with barrier films are necessary to meet certification standards. The requested amount for the Ghazaregion has been adjusted to MBTOC’sstandard presumption of 35 g/m2for 98:2 MB. The Party stated that 1,3-D + Pic mixture has been the leadingalternative; however, adoption of this alternative is limited by the required 250 m buffer which significantly limits its use in the Sharon strawberry nurserygrowing area, which is heavily populated. Hot gas application method is used in the Ghaza Strip growing area because the plotsare small, adjacent to housesand there are no injection tools or qualified applicators in thearea. 10% of the treated area inthe Ghaza strip will be tested with barrier films with a reducedapplication rate. MBTOC encourages faster adoption of LPBF in the Ghaza Strip. 100% of the treated area in Sharon uses barrierfilms (VIF).MBTOC comments on economics 2008:No economic data providedIsrael Strawberryrunners andFruit (Ghazaonly)67.500(Ghaza only)refer aboveMBTOC comments 2008:Comments included in text boxes above as the Party consolidated the Israel and Gaza nominations.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:CUN argues that the availability of MB for strawberry industry of the Ghaza strip is vital. Without MB growers will notbe able to grow the crop and might lose their main source of income, which, it is argued, constitutes ‘a genuine case of economic disruption’. No economicdata are provided, as there are insufficient data on the use of MB alternatives in Ghaza.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report35Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Israel SweetPotatoesNone none None 111.500 None 95.000 95.000MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 95 tonnes for this use in 2009. Sweet potatois a new crop in Israel that is rapidly expanding in productionarea. The pest complexes are just being identified and studies toidentify alternatives have just commenced. The applicant indicates that MB is currently theonly registered chemical for sweet potato production in Israel. TheParty however, also states that the expected primary registration of MB alternatives by 2008and that adoption of these alternatives by 2009 was the basis for the reduced quantity applied for in 2009. Although not clearly stated the Party indicates that1,3-D/Pic and 1,3-D + metham sodium wereeffective control alternatives, but registration of 1,3-D has been discontinued by thecompanies and thus thesealternatives are not likely to materialize. Formalin, which is registered for control of common scab on potatoes, is being tested alone and in combination withother chemicals for scab on sweet potatoes. Once efficacy trialsare completed registration forformalin will be pursued. By 2009, MB will be applied on 80 haof nurseries and on not more than 25% of the production area, viz.300 ha. The MB rates stated inthe CUN are consistent with MBTOC’s standardpresumptions and barrier film use. MBTOCrecommends that the Party explore the use ofnematode resistant varieties of sweet potato as these are availableand widely used in countries where nematodes are the primary pest problem.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:Semi-commercial application of 1,3-D on a total area of100 ha in the Central Coastal area in 2005 lead tounsatisfactory results and economic losses.Party suggests that Cadusafos is not a front-line nematicide in Israel and it cannot cope with the economic lossesinflicted by root-knot nematodes in the Sharon region.CUN argues that the use of 1,3-D 200+MS400 l/ha will increase the farmers’ net marginby 53%, but 1,3-D is not yet registered.36October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.40051.450 34.300 None - 34.100 Interim(23.00)Final 30.69MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 30.69 tonnes for thisuse in 2010. For 2010, the Party requested 34.1 t, which wassimilar to the amount approved by the Parties at the 19th MOP.The recommended quantity represents a10% reduction from the nominated amount based onuptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogen free seeds , 1,3 D+Pic and cultural practices such as rotation, root isolationand sanitation. MBTOC's interim recommendation was 23.00 t, however at the 28th OEWG,Japan requested a review of this decision because the substantialreduction by MBTOC for adoption of alternatives could not be achieved by 2010. In response, Japan provided a comprehensive National Action Plan detailingstep wise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. Theyalso provided details of an additional strategy which involvesimmunisation withavirulent virusstrains, which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. MBTOC acknowledges the excellent national action planto phase out MB by 2013,beginning with a reduction of 10 % in 2011. MBTOC, however, considers that the 10 % reduction is feasible for 2010 and has revised its interimrecommendation from a 33 % reduction to a 10% reduction for 2010.The nomination is based on the need to control particular virusesof cucumber, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soil borne pathogensbut can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated programincluding cultural practicese.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destructionof crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surrounded area, andpathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similar situations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation tonon-susceptible hosts such astomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). As a transition strategy, MBTOC urges the Party to increaseadoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for cucumberin Japan which hasbeen in place for many years. However, in many countries cucumber production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has becomethe most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array ofsoil borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are availablefor this kind of production and are widely used in around the world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002;Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004;Engindeniz, 2004). The Party is encouraged to consider substrate production, which implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002,2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002,Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree ofsanitation and for the useof pathogen free transplants. Largenumbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLFprojects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). The CUN states thatthe Aichi Agricultural Research Centre(2005) identified the effectiveness of KGMMV control by methyliodide in pot tests. MBTOC encourages the Party to continue to pursue the registration of methyl iodide for soil uses (methyl iodide was registered for importedtimber in Japan in 2004, under JMAFF registration No. 21407).MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The Party states that thenominated amount is nearly halfthe nominated amount for 2009 and that it is 200 kgbelow the amount recommended by MBTOC and approved by MOP 19. Further key information provided by the Party is that “Technically and economicallyfeasible alternative technology has not been developed yet.” “Foreconomic feasibility evaluation,it is prerequisite that technically feasible alternative isexisted. In fact there is no technicallyfeasible alternative, and accordingly economic evaluation has not been carried out atall.” This CUN shares the sameinformation as CUN for peppers and watermelon. A reference (45) compares costs of soilless systems to MB treatment of soils.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report37Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Japan Ginger(Field)119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.056 None - 53.400 53.400MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 53.4 tonnes for this use in2010. The nomination is for control ofPythiumspp. (Pythium ultimum var. ultimum,Pythium zingiberium) in open field cultivated ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. MBTOC recognized the difficulties that growers have inadopting some alternatives and the time required to introducealternatives and new disease management strategies. The CUN states that the fungidie,cyazofamid, controlsPythiumefficiently but application rates and methods need to be investigated in more detail. The use of fungicides specific to Oomycetes,such as phosphonates, has been tested but data as to efficacy isnot provided. Reduced emission technologies such as LPBF filmsare now being used andshould allow for much reduced dosage rates (e.g. 250 kg/ha (25g/m2) for 98:2 with LPBF). This current nominationprovides hope that alternative treatments toMB are now applicable to Japanese production systems for ginger.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:Iodomethane is not registered and there are concerns aboutphytotoxicity. Page 5: “Unavailability of technically andeconomically feasible alternative technology to methyl bromide at present, but reduction and phase-out shall be targeted by combining the existing alternativetechniques and developing a reduction program for each region.”Economic section compared MB system with untreated, Dazomet, and Metalaxyl. Negative revenues result in the case of all alternatives.Japan Ginger(protected)22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.325 None - 8.300 8.300MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 8.3 tonnes for this use in 2010.The nomination is for control of Pythium spp. (Pythium ultimumvar.ultimum,Pythium zingiberium) in protected ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cans. MBTOC recognized the difficulties that growers have in adoptingsome alternatives and the time required to introduce alternativesand new disease management strategies. The CUN states that Cyazofamid controls pythiumefficiently but application rates and methods need to be investigatedin more detail. The use of fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such as phosphonates, hasbeen tested but data as to efficacy is not provided. Reduced emission technologies such as LPBF films are now being used and should allow for muchreduced dosage rates (e.g. 25g/m2for 98:2 with LPBF). This current nomination provides hope that alternative treatmentsto MB are now applicable toJapanese production systems for ginger.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:Iodomethane is not registered and there are concerns about phytotoxicity.Economic section compared MB systemwith untreated, 1,3-D-Pic, and hot water treatment. Negative revenues result from untreated and 1,3-D-Pic. Hot water results inhigher gross revenue but netrevenue is 25% of that for MB. This is the same finding as lastyear. This net revenue decreasedemonstrates hot water is not economically feasible.38October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 91.100 None - 90.800 Interim(61.00)Final 81.72MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of81.72 tonnes for this use in 2010. For 2010, the Partyrequested 90.80 t, which was similar to the amount approved bythe Parties at the 19th MOP. The recommended quantity representsa 10% reduction from theCUN amount based on uptake of available alternatives, e.g. steam, soil less culture,grafting, pathogen free seeds, 1,3 D+Pic and cultural practices such asrotation, root isolation and sanitation. MBTOC's interim recommendation was 61.00 t, however at the 28th OEWG, Japan requesteda review of this decisionbecause the substantial reduction by MBTOCfor adoption of alternatives could not be achieved by 2010. In response, Japan provided a comprehensiveNational Action Plan detailing step wise phase out by 2013 using arange of alternatives. They also provided details of an additional strategy which involvesimmunisation with avirulent virus strains, which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. MBTOC acknowledges the excellent National ActionPlan to phase out MB by 2013, beginning with a reduction of 10% in 2011. MBTOC, however, considers that the 10 % reduction isfeasible for 2010 and hasrevised its interim recommendation from a 33 % reduction to a 10%reduction for 2010. The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virus ofmelons. Globally, this virus is not considered as a soil-borne pathogen but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises fromcontinuous monoculture. An integrated program including culturalpractices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicatedthat rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuoand Suga, 1993). MBTOCurges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used formelons in Japan which has been in place for many years. However,in many countries some melon production has already shifted tosubstrates in greenhouseconditions and has become the most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems(buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of productionand are widely used in around the world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004;Budai, 2002; Savvas andPassam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC,2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studiesconducted in Japan support soil less culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even whengrowing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and forthe use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a short period of time as experienced in manyMLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according to the party, the root stocks are not resistant to allthe pathogen races. High yielding varietiesresistant to the virus are Cavailable. Steamhas also been found to control the virus, particularly in the upper soillayer.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:Iodomethane is not registered and there are concerns aboutphytotoxicity that call for field trials before adoption.Some success has been achieved with resistant varieties. Economicinformation is brief. Shows significantly lower gross and netrevenue for resistant varietiesthan with MB. “According to the data of Chiba Chosei district, melon resistant variety to MNSV shows only 73.8% for gross income and 30.8% for net revenuecompared with those treated with MB. As mentioned above, fruits of resistant melon toMNSV are not in favor of market evaluation with poorer taste andshape. Furthermore, its yield is not necessarily competitive to the yield of product treated with methyl bromide. So melon of resistant variety is not economicallyfeasible to replace methyl bromide treatment.” Furthermore the CUN shows that the market price of the resistant varieties is significantly lower (about 50%)than the conventional variety.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report39Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)Japan Pepper(green &hot)187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725 81.149 None - 81.100 Interim(54.37)Final 72.99MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 72.99 tonnes for this usein 2010. For 2010, the Party requested 81.10 t, which wassimilar to the amount approved by the Parties at the 19th MOP. Therecommended quantity representsa 10% reduction from the CUNamount based onuptake of available alternatives, e.g.steam, soil less culture, grafting, pathogenfree seeds, 1,3 D+Pic and cultural practices such as rotation, root isolation andsanitation. MBTOC's interim recommendation was 54.37 t, however atthe 28th OEWG, Japan requested a review of this decision because the substantialreduction by MBTOC for adoption of alternatives could not be achieved by 2010. In response, Japan provided a comprehensive National Action Plan detailingstep wise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. Theyalso provided details of an additional strategy which involvesimmunisation with avirulent virusstrains, which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. MBTOC acknowledges the excellent National Action Planto phase out MB by 2013,beginning with a reduction of 10 % in 2011. MBTOC, however, considers that the 10 % reduction is feasible for 2010 and has revised its interimrecommendation from a 33 % reduction to a 10% reduction for 2010.The nomination is based on the need to control a particular virusof peppers (PMMoV). Globally, this virus is not considered asa soil-borne pathogen but cansurvive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arisesfrom continuous monoculture.Avoidance is the best means ofcontrol. Only seed that hasbeen tested and determined to be free of the virus should be planted. Infected seed can be treated with heat, acid, or trisodium phosphate. In addition to usingcertified or treated seeds, follow rigid sanitation procedures.All workers that handle the plants, especially smokers, shouldwash their hands, fingernails, andforearms thoroughly with 70% alcohol or strong soap before handling plants.(Demski 1981, Watter 1984). Some cultivars are resistant to PMMoV. This virusdoes not affect tomato, eggplant or tobacco, which are in the same family (Solanaceae). Therefore these plants can be introduced in a crop rotation. Culturalpractices, resistant varieties, biologicalcontrol with attenuated virus, soil lessculture, soil disinfection by hot water orsteam, addition of the organic substancematerial (Tsuda 2006) should be included in an IPM program. Thisintegrated program has been proven to be effective in many other countries (Demski 1981,Watter 1984, Tsuda 2006). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. Inmany countries somepepper production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used technique foreliminating a wide array ofsoil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production andare widely used in around theworld (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002;Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, when implementedcorrectly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006;Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakumaand Suzuki 1995). Resistant root stocks are now available in Japan. However, according tothe party, the root stocks are not resistant to all thepathogen races.40October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The CUN states that there are no technically feasible alternatives and thus no economic evaluation was carried out.See page 9: “For economic feasibility evaluation, it is a prerequisite that technically feasible alternatives exist. In fact there is no technically feasible alternative,and accordingly economic evaluation has not been carried out at all.” The CUN notes (page 4 under iii): “Technically and economically feasible alternativetechnology has not been developed yet. However, farmers might takeinto consideration the change to another crop. That is one of the reasons why thevolume of methyl bromide critical use nomination for 2010 isshown less than for 2009.” CUN noteson page 5 that substrates involve high costs for facilityconstruction and difficulty mastering cultivation skill. Economic and technical potential for hydroponic cultivation of severalcrops is discussed in broad terms.CUN refers to Reference 45, a MAFF document on economics of soilless culture. Reference 45 compares the annualized (1/10 of capital cost for a soillesssystem) to a threshold limit based on the Agricultural EconomicsTask Force calculation of $14.4/kg of MB. Assuming 40 kg of MBat $14.4 each andconverting to yen, results in a limit of68,008 yen for any alternative to compete with MB. The annual cost for a soilless facility is 550,000 yen, meaning theAETF value placed on the MB to be replaced (68,008 yen) is farlower than the cost of the alternative soilless facility. The AETF value of $14.4 kg represents avalue that A5 governments were willing to accept to phase outMB use in MLF projects. The 550,000 yen for soilless facilities is the estimated annual cost togrowers in non-A5 countries to remain in production without MB. Reference 45 goes on to present a budget table comparing soilless culture with MB basedproduction. The conclusion is that net revenue with soillessproduction is about 80% less than MBnet revenue. If the capital cost for a soilless facility isanywhere near the assumed 5,500,000 yen, the impact on grower net revenue will be solarge that the soilless alternative shouldbe deemed not economicallyfeasible. Note—Reference 45 conducts similar analyses for soilless production of cucumber and watermelon.Japan Watermelon129.000 98.90094.20032.475 21.650 None - 15.400 Interim (14.50)Final 14.50MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC comments 2008: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of14.50 tonnes for this use in 2010. MBTOC's interimrecommendation was 14.50 t, however at the 28th OEWG, Japan requested a review of this decisionbecause the substantial reduction by MBTOC foradoption of alternatives could notbe achieved by 2010 for most sectors. In response, Japan provided a comprehensive NationalAction Plan detailing stepwise phase out by 2013 using a range of alternatives. They alsoprovided details of an additional strategy which involves immunisation with avirulent virusstrains, which the Party believes will be widely accepted in the future. MBTOC acknowledges the excellent National Action Planto phase out MB by 2013 andthat the Party made a substantial reductionto the nomination in 2010 (29%), howeverMBTOC maintains that a further small reduction for uptake ofalternatives (6%) is still possible by 2010. The nomination isbased on the need to control a particular virus of watermelons.Globally, this virus is notconsidered as a soil-borne pathogen but cansurvive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continuousmonoculture. An integratedprogram including cultural practices has been proven to be effective in many other countries. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hostssuch as tomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reducevirus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Partyto increase adoption ofLPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by up to 50%. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for watermelons in Japan which has been inplace for many years. However, in many countries some watermelon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has becomethe most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array ofsoil-borne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are availablefor this kind of production and are widely used in around the world (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004;Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate production, whenimplemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvasand Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Japan support soil less culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma andSuzuki 1995). MBTOCnotes however that even when growing in substrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use ofpathogen free transplants. Largenumbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in ashort period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). Resistantroot stocks are now available inJapan. However, according tothe Party, the root stocks arenot resistant to all the pathogenraces. High yielding varietiesresistant to CGMMV are also available. Steam has also been found to control the virus, particularly in the upper soil layer.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report41Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2008:Key information Page 3: “Technically and economically feasible alternative technology has not been developed yet.”Page 8: “For economic feasibility evaluation, it is a prerequisitethat technically feasible alternatives exist. In fact thereis no technically feasible alternative, andaccordingly economic evaluation has not been carried out at all.”This CUN shares the same information as CUN for peppers and cucumbers. Refers readersto Reference 45 where costs of soilless systems are compared to MB system.UnitedStatesCurcurbits 1,187.800 747.839 592.891486.757 407.091 None - 340.405 Interim(266.199)Final 302.974MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 302.974 tonnes for this use in2010. After consideration of the Party’s responses receivedsince bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MBTOC accepted ratesnominated by the Party for use with barrier films (150 kg/hafor pathogens 175 kg/ha fornutsedge) based on the circumstances of thisnomination, pending further review. Fromthis amount,104.771 t are for Georgia cucurbits, 174.691 t for theSoutheast region, 6.862 t for Maryland and Delaware, and 16.650 tfor Michigan. MBTOC acknowledged the reductions made by the Party for transition toalternatives, however further reductions made in MBTOC's interimrecommedation for adoption of alternatives of 25% in Maryland/Delaware, 16.98% inSoutheast region, 2.44% for Georgia squashand 4.92% for Georgia melons have been maintained. No reductions were made in Michigan and GeorgiaCucumber. MBTOC notes that iodomethane is notyet registered for use in these crops. The Party is urged to consider further adoption of grafting forcommercial use in melon and watermelon. MBTOC urges the Party todisaggregate this nomination by major types of cucurbits comprised (melons,watermelons, cucumbers and squash) specifying the key pests in each case; submitting specific updated technical references (when pathogens are the issue);stating the limitations tothe adoption of MB alternatives in each case; andindicating specific R&D efforts, in a similar waythe Party has submitted, forexample, the economic information in the CUN.In future nominations, MBTOC may be unable to assess the specific circumstances that prevent the use of MBalternatives in each of the crops, when separate data for each different sector is notprovided. Since the key pest in the southeast and Georgia is nutsedge, infuture nominations the Party is requested to provide up to dateinformation on recent trials of fumigants and herbicides for nutsedge control for each specificcrop included in the nomination in order to satify the requirements of Decision IX/6. MBTOC considers that trial data from other crops (e.g.tomato, pepper) canbe considered as showing suitability of alternatives for cucurbits,and thus feasible alternatives appear to be available for both karst and non-karst areas inGeorgia (Noling et al 2006; Rosskopf et al, 2005; Gilreath and Santos2004a; Gilreath et al 2003a,2005a; Gilreath 1999, Santoset al 2006; Chellemi et al2004; Chellemi 2006) and can be adopted at least on areas of moderate pest pressure. The Party showed references which supported use of alternatives incombination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson,1999, Babadost and Islam2002, Johnston et al 2002, Driver and Lows2003). A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, napropamide,halosulfuron, s-metalochlor) is considered as the best alternativestrategy in Florida for nutsedge control in several crops. The Party reported that researchconducted at the University ofGeorgia examined the use of a 3 way combinationof alternative fumigants, 1,3-D followed by chloropicrin followed by methamsodium and this combination was effective. Hausbeck, Lamour andothers (2004) have reported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthoraon pepper, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), culturalcontrol (water management, plantdensity, soil amendments, protective mulch,raised beds etc.) and the use of registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph, Zoxamide + Mancozeb,Copper hydroxide+dimethomorph). MBTOC notesthe use of grafting and resistant varieties are considered as alternatives for long lasting crops in manyMediterranean countries (Bello, et al., 2001).42October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination is based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN.CUN states that thenext best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrinwith expected yield losses of 6% in Michigan, Maryland and Delaware and 29% in SoutheasternStates and Georgia. CUN states 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. However, CUN noted thatfor Michigan in addition to theyield loss, delayed planting and harvest with the alternatives results in lower average price received from missed market windows and negative net revenue. Inremaining regions yield losses significantly reduce net revenues.CUN notes other regions may also experience lower prices because of missed marketwindows. The 3 way research conducted at the University of Georgia is feasible and the CUN was adjusted to reflect this reduction in southern states in areasthat do not face Karst geology issues as a replacement of a MB+ Pic spring time application.UnitedStatesEggplant(field)76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.691 None - 34.732 Interim(26.149)Final 32.820MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 32.820 tonnes for this use in 2010. From thisamount 11.235 t is for Georgia, 18.843 t for Florida and 2.742for Michigan. After consideration of the Party’s responses received since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MBTOC accepted rates nominated by theParty for use with barrier films (150 kg/ha for pathogens 175 kg/ha for nutsedge) based on the circumstances of this nomination, pending further review.Overall the Party’s request of 34.732 t represents a reduction of 29% from the amountapproved by the Parties in 2009 due to asignificant transition toalternatives in Florida which is acknowledged by MBTOC. MBTOC considers alternatives are still available for 14.89% of the nominated amount in Georgia.MBTOC notes that iodomethane is not yet registered for use in these crops. In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capsici.MBTOC recognizes theParties statement that 1,3-D/Pic may be an effective alternative, but growers will miss the optimal market window due to longerplant back times with thisalternative. According to the Party, this treatment cannot beapplied in autumn because of climatic conditions. In addition, afall application of MB is not feasiblebecause over the fall and winter months deer and other animalsdamage the plastic and irrigation tape. In Florida, the key pests are yellow and purplenutsedge, Phytophthora, nematodes, Pythium and Sclerotinia. In Georgia the key pests are yellow and purple nutsedge, Phytophthora, nematodes, southernblight, Pythium and Sclerotinia. Karst topography limits the use ofalternatives which include 1,3- D that are the best alternatives for these pests on 40% of thegrowing acreage in Florida and 8% of the acreage in Georgia. A soil treatment recentlydeveloped by the University of Georgia is being adopted as analternative to methyl bromide for Georgia’s solanaceous springcrops, although not for the summer or fall crops. This treatment, known as UGA-3-WAY,consists of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with a 1,3-D (Telone II) application, followed by a chloropicrin application, followed by a methamapplication. Hausbeck and Lamour (2004) andothers have reported many other efficientmanagement strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper inMichigan including 3-4 years crop rotation with non susceptiblehosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), cultural control (watermanagement, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch and raised beds) and use of registered fungicides in Michigan (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph,Zoxamide + Mancozeb). The use of grafting is considered an alternative in many Mediterranean countries (Bello et al., 2001). Itis important to note that MB isnot used in other country on eggplant.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report43Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination is based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN.This treatment, knownas UGA-3-WAY, consists of three successive soil fumigations, beginning with a1,3-D (Telone II) application, followed by a chloropicrin application, followed bya metham application. Furthersmall plot and large-scale, on-farm research on various aspects is underway. In addition, the economics of transitioning to thisalternative, including the cost and durability of films and the modification of fumigation equipment, still needs to be workedout. CUN states next bestalternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6% in Michigan and 29% in Georgia and Florida. CUN states 1,3-D withchloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan.In Michigan, since the fall crop is dependent upon timely planting, the required waiting period wouldcost growers half the harvest season, thereby missing the higher market windows.UnitedStatesForestrynursery192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060 None - 120.853 117.826MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 117.826tonnes for this use in 2010, which includes 66.3 t for Southern Forest Nursery,4.94 t for International Paper, 13.78 t for Weyerhauser (SE), 15.19 t for Weyerhauser (NW), 12.096 t for NE Forest & Conservation Nursery, and 5.52 t forMichigan Seedling Assoc. The nominated amount has been adjustedto 260 kg/ha (26 g/m2) for nutsedge control and 200 kg/ha (20g/m2) for pathogen toconform to the standard presumption for dosage rate of MB/Pic formulation under HDPE. The key pests are nutsedge, nematodes andfungi. MBTOC notesthat propagative material requires a veryhigh level of pathogen control in order to avoid their widespread distribution from the nursery to the production fields.The CUN is for nurseries with moderate or high pest pressure where alternatives are not effective. Nutsedge has no effect on certification, but the Party statesthat it does affect yield by 3-5%. MBTOCrequests that further nominations clearlyshow the trend in yield loss caused by nutsedge, nematodes or fungalpathogens over the number of seasons following fumigation withMB and alternatives, and a breakdown of the economic comparisonsto MB treatment. For theNortheast Forest and Conservation Nursery, 40% is for nutsedgecontrol and 60% of the nomination for pathogens. For Michigan Seedlings 50% is fornutsedge control and 50% for pathogens. The nomination is for certified forest seedlings produced in 6 forest nursery regions.The CUN is based on economicinfeasibility of use of substrates and thelack of effective alternatives for control of nutsedge and a range of fungal pathogens and nematodes. The keyalternatives are 1,3-D/Pic, 1,3-D /Pic/metham sodium and metham sodium +Pic. The Party acknowledged that Pic and metham when used in conjunction withLPBF, may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid cropinjury. Enebak et al. (2006) found that with LPBF, use rates of MB can be significantlyreduced. The Party claims that gluing of LPBF for broadacre fumigation is not commercially available in the region, but MBTOC is aware of successful use inother countries (eg. Israel). MBTOC observed a demonstration of an effective heat welding technique used with LPBF that was initially described for use withHDPE for solarization trials in Israel (Grinstein and Hetzroni, 1991; Grinstein, 1992).MBTOC urges the Party to evaluate these technologies and provide anupdate in future nominations. MBTOC considers that glyphosate can be used as a pre-treatment to reduce pressure from nutsedge,however, this herbicidemay cause phytotoxicity under nursery conditions. MBTOC acknowledges the initiation of large scale demonstration trials for this sector by the Party. A reportfrom this trial on the first year of the 5 year trial, indicates that seedling counts similar to MB were achieved by several other treatments, but no indication ofpathogen or weed pressure was given (Quicke et al., 2007). MBTOCis aware that iodomethane isnow registered at the federal level and in 43 states,however its status as an acceptable treatmentfor certified forest nurseries is not yet known and an update ius required in future nominations. MBTOCrequests that in future nominations, information the status of iodomethane for certified nursery use and the number of hectaresof production for conifers ineach state where iodomethane/pic is registered and accepted for certification be included. MBTOC encourages growers to continueevaluation of iodomethanefor their crops under their conditions. MBTOC further recommends that growers use appropriate caution until they become experienced in using this materialdue to some isolated reports of phytotoxicity in other perennialcrops (Schneider et al, 2006). Limited substrate production of these crops is economical forsmall niche markets. Frequency of fumigation is once in two tofour years, depending on the crop. Rotation and cover crops arenot fumigated. Research is ongoing to reduce rates from 98:2 MB/Pic commonly used where nutsedge populations are severe to using reduced rates of 67:33 MB/Pic. This transition hasalready been made in 70 % of the forest nurseries inthe South where nutsedge populations are not severe.44October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination is based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN.Alternatives have 3-5% decrease in yield and higher costs resulting in estimated decreases in net revenue that varied from 11 percent to 53 percentwith the next best alternative.CUN states numerical analysis does not include additional impact ofquality losses and indirect yield losses resulting from lengthening of the production cycle.While direct yield losses, in terms of seedlings/hectare, maynot be large on average, intensive seedling production relies onthe ability of nursery managers tomeet quality, as well as yield, goals.Converting the large volume of seedlings to containerized production would require significant investment and much higher costsboth at the production stageand for end users planting the seedlings.Economic issues such as increased application costs (e.g., costs associated with application of metam-sodium and a separate chloropicrin application) mayhave an impact on overall feasibility of these alternatives for the forest seedlings sector.UnitedStatesNurseriesstock (fruit,nut, flower)45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.326 None - 17.954 17.363MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a total of 17.363 tonnes for this use in 2010.This comprises 9.408 t for raspberries, 0.955 t for roses, and7.0t for fruit and nut trees. This nomination is for propagation materials that need to be certified as free of pests and diseases, even if certification is voluntary inthis state. MBTOC accepted therates of 191 kg/ha (19.1 g/m2) for rose nursery and 196 kg/ha (19.6 g/m2) for raspberry nursery, and reduces the rate to 200kg/ha (20.0 g/m2) for fruit and nut tree nursery to conform to MBTOC’s standard presumptions. MBTOC recognises that propagative material requires a veryhigh level of soilborne pest and pathogen control in order to avoid their wide spread distribution and notes the difficulty inprotecting raspberry roots to a 1.5 mdepth. MBTOC acknowledges the Party’s adoption of MB/Pic formulations of 67:33 and 50:50 as is used in other countries. MBTOCacknowledges the federalregistration of iodomethane for use in nurseries, but also recognizes that it is not yet registered in California and Washington.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:No economic data or alternatives givenOctober 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report45Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)UnitedStatesOrchardreplant706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756 None - 226.021 215.800MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 215.800 tonnes for this use in 2010. This includes reduced amounts of 150.400 t forstone fruit, 7.400 t for raisins, 21.800 t for walnuts, 18.600 t for almond and 17.600 t for wine grapes. The CUN is for orchard/vineyard replant disorder ofunknown etiology; heavy soils or soils which cannot be treatedto a sufficient depth to effectively use the reduced rates of 1,3-D now allowed in California.Regulatory constraints (maximum labeled rate) prevent the use of1,3-D at the rates needed foreffective kill of old roots andthe associated pathogens indeeper soil layers for heavier (fine-textured) soils. Three alternatives, 1,3-D alone and 1,3-D combined with chloropicrin or metham sodium, are availabletechnical alternatives according to the CUN for treatment in light soils. Although a two year fallow was found to be effectiveunder Mediterranean conditions byBello,et al, 2004, Schneider,et al.2004 found that a four year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nematodes. Recent promising results with aone year fallow combined with non-Nemaguard rootstock have been reported by McKenry (2006). The Party confirms that MB/Pic 67:33 formulation is used forCalifornia Stone fruit, Raisin grapes and Wine grapes and nowas well for Almond and Walnut. Commercial adoption of 67:33 formulation and otherscontaining lower amounts of MB (eg 50:50)were used predominantly for orchard replanttreatment in other countries before switching to alternatives. Therecommended reduced amount is based on application ofMBTOC’s standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) for control of pests and pathogens withoutthe use of LPBF. This represents a reduction of 10.221 tonnes or 4.5%of the nominated amount.MBTOC recognizes that regulatory restraints prevent theuse of LPBF barrier films with methyl bromide in California buturges the Party to consider continued evaluation of their use to improve the performance ofalternatives. MBTOC acknowledges the federal registration ofiodomethane for use in orchard replant, but also recognizes thatit is not yet registered inCalifornia.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:Inexperimental plots, spot treatments (individual holes) rates of 0.2 to 0.5 kg chloropicrin per hole were at least as effectiveas methyl bromide. Technical issuesremain with individual treatments including high labor costs. Aneconomic analysis was not done for this sector because most ofthe losses cannot bequantified. Factors thatcontribute to losses include delayed planting, fallow, additional use of herbicides, tree loss, replant costs to replace tree losses, loss oftrees replanted, yield loss of fruit or nuts, delayed achievement of full yield potential, earlier loss of productivity of whole orchard. McKenry 1999, suggests thatin some cases tree losses are likely to be greater than 20 %. Aneconomic assessment for 1,3-dichloropropene, 1,3-dichloropropene + chloropicrin, and 1,3-dichloropropene + metam-sodium, which were alternatives that were assessed as conditionally technically feasible, was made. Theeconomic assessment offeasibility for pre-plant uses of methyl bromide, such as fororchard replant, included an evaluation of economic losses from three basic sources: (1) yieldlosses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, (2) quality losses, which generally affect the price received for thegoods, and (3) increased productioncosts, which may be due to the higher-cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or resulting shifts in other production or harvestingpractices. In response to further MBTOC questions, the Party responded: “The lowest cost alternative to methyl bromide was 1,3-dichloropropene and rangedfrom a savings of US$8 to US$1,700/ha, including the cost of application.We assumed that this alternative is associated with the higher yield losses andreplacement rate since it provides narrower control than when itis used in conjunction with chloropicrin or metam-sodium ... Economic losses in this scenarioarise primarily from higher establishment costs caused by the necessity of replacing trees that succumb to the replant disorder. Additional losses occur due tothe delay in establishing the orchard and in yield losses suffered by trees that are weakened, but not killed, by the pest complex comprising the replantproblem. Despite reductions in fumigation costs, economic lossesover the life span of the orchards could range from US$1,600/ha in walnuts to nearlyUS$7,000/ha in stone fruit and represent between15 and 93 percent of value of the orchard.”46October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)UnitedStatesOrnamentals 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.136 None - 111.391Rev. 95.204Interim(92.912)Final 84.617MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 84.617 tonnes for this usein 2010. This includes 57.963 t for California, 2.299 t forMichigan, 0.074 t for New York and 24.281 t for Florida. The nomination is for a large number ofspecies, mostly grown in thefield. In Florida, the mainspecies using MB are gladioli, lilies and snapdragon. Additional species using MB in California include calla lily, delphinium,dianthus, eustoma, freesia,helianthus, hypericum, iris, larkspur, liatris, matthiola, and ranunculus. In Michigan, flower crops needing methyl bromide areherbaceous perennials grownfrom seed or root divisions. A new application was submitted for production ofAnemone coronariacut flowers in New York. MB is needed to control diseases(e.g.,Fusariumspp.,Pythiumspp.,Phytophthoraspp., andRhizoctoniaspp.), plant parasitic nematodes (e.g., rootknot, root lesion, stunt and dagger), weeds(e.g.Cyperusspp.Portulacca, Ambrosiaand others), and previous crop propagules. MBTOC adjustedthe California portion of thenomination from 211 kg/ha(21.1 g/m2) to standard dosage rates of 200kg/ha (20 g/m2) with standard polyethylene films. Similarly, the Florida and New York portions of the nominationhave been adjusted from 224 kg/ha (22.4 g/m2) and 734 kg/ha (73.4 g/m2) respectively to the standard dosage rate of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2). MBTOC considersalternatives available for some flower types in California, forexample 1,3-D/Pic, metahm sodiumand combinations (Klose et al,2007, Klose, 2008) and hasreduced the nomination by 10% for phase in ofthese alternatives. In Florida, iodomethane is now registered and other alternatives are available, for example1,3-D/Pic and solarisation sometimes combined with chemicals (McSorleyet al, 2006 ab). The Party has submitted a revised nomination which takes accountof a 40% adoption rate for iodomethane in this state. In Michigan, the recommended amount includes a 15% reduction to account for uptake of iodomethane,which has been shown to be effective (i.e. Uhlig et al., 2007).Other registered and validatedoptions include 1,3-D, Pic and MS plus a range of herbicides(Uhliget al, 2007; Littleet al, 2006). MBTOC considers alternatives are available and are inuse for anemone cut flower production particularly substrates (Reaet al, 2008). In future nominations MBTOC requires specific informationas to areas that cannot be treated with MB using injection machinery.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic arguments provided in the CUN:Theeconomic analysis shows decreases in yield in California of 20%to 25% result in negative net revenues. In Florida net revenuesdecrease 65% to 81%because of yield losses with alternatives. In Michigan herbaceousperennials, yield losses of 25% lead to net revenue declinesof 37%. Although containerproduction may be possible in higher value cut flower crops,it is not generally feasible, especially for deeper rooted crops and on large acreage. Soillesssystems are not a feasible alternative for the crops in the nomination due to high costs andthe risks involved.High fuel oilcosts also affect the economicfeasibility of steam sterilization. In New York, there are additional costs dueto a state requirement for an on-site operatingengineer for high pressure steam.Generally, for most crops, there isn't an offsetting yield or quality increase to defer the costsassociated with substrate production. Costs include a largeincrease in inputs, capital expenditures for the systems coupledwith high costs of potting mix or substrates, plus the labor to move crates or install the system.Alternatives generally require more labor, which is often unavailable.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report47Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)UnitedStatesPeppers(field)1,094.782 1,243.542 1,106.753 756.339 548.984 None - 658.952Rev.463.282Interim(457.299)Final463.282MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 463.282 tonnes for the revised nomination submitted by the Party. After consideration of the Party’sresponses received since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG,MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party for use with barrier films (150 kg/ha (15g/m2) for pathogens 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2) for nutsedge) based on the circumstances ofthis nomination, pending further review.MBTOC also accepted theParty's reductions for uptake of iodomethane. This represents21.579 t for the SE, 75.510 t forGeorgia, 359.995 t for Floridaand 6.198 t for Michigan. MBTOCacknowledged the substantial reductions made by the Party in the resubmission. The revised nominated amounts reflect between 32and 66% reduction fromthe amount approved by the Parties in 2007. The key pests of peppers in Michigan arePhytophthora capsiciand in the Southeastern United States, includingFlorida and Georgia, nutsedge andP. capsici. 1,3-D/ Pic may be an effective alternative but the Party states growers will miss the optimal market window.According to the Party, this treatment cannot be applied in autumn because of climatic conditions. In Florida and Georgia the Party states that alternatives nowexist for karst (iodomethane) and non-karst topography (in additionto iodomethane, alternatives include 1,3-D) .The Party hasstated that metham sodium andmetham potassium are promising alternatives. MBTOC also considers that alternativesare available for both karst and non-karstareas in Florida and Georgia(Noling et al 2006; Rosskopf et al, 2005; Gilreath and Santos 2004a; Gilreath et al 2003a,2005a; Gilreath 1999, Santos et al 2006; Chellemi et al 2004;Chellemi 2006) and can be adopted at least onareas of moderate pest pressure. The Party showed references which supported useof alternatives incombination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson,1999, Babadost and Islam2002, Johnston et al 2002, Driver and Lows2003). A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, napropamide,halosulfuron, s-metalochlor) and a 3 way combination of alternative fumigants, 1,3-D followed by chloropicrin followed by metham sodium are consideredalternative strategies in Florida for thenutsedge control. The Party reported that research conducted at the University of Georgia examined the use ofHausbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reported many efficientmanagement strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper, including crop rotation withnon susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa), cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protectivemulch, raised beds etc.) and useof registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph, Zoxamide + Mancozeb, Copper hydroxide+dimethomorph). Seedtreatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl control Phytophthora during seed germination. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for this crop in regions withsimilar pests has occurred within 4 years or less in many countries e.g. Spain, Italy, Australia (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti,2004; Tostovrsnik et al 2005;Minuto et al, 2003). The use of grafting and resistant varieties are considered as alternatives for long lasting crops (at least 6 months) in many Mediterraneancountries (Bello et al, 2001).MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination was based on economic arguments. Economic arguments provided in the CUN:CUN states nextbest alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin withexpected yield losses of 6 percent in Michigan and California and 29 percent in other regions. CUNstates 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. In Michigan, delayed planting and harvest with the alternatives results in loweraverage price (7.5%) received from missed market windows, and negative net revenue. In remaining regions yield losses significantly reduce net revenues. Insouthern states USG has reduced the request for MB to reflect the apparent feasibility of a 3 way combination (1,3 D followed by chloropicrin followed bymetam-sodium) as a replacement for spring time application ofMB and pic in the non-karst geographical areas. A transition ratewas applied based on the bestestimate of yield losses and feasibility associated with likelymethyl bromide alternatives and use of high barrier films thatcould be made by USG biologistsand economists.48October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)UnitedStatesStrawberry(field)2,052.846 1,730.828 1,476.019 1,349.575 1,269.321 None - 1,191.815Rev. 1103.422Interim(998.063)Final 1007.477MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 1007.477 tonnes for this use in 2010. The recommendation is based on new informationfrom the Party since the interim recommendation. This comprises 856.598 t for California, 47.862 t for Eastern USA and 103.017t for Florida. MBTOCacknowledges the substantial transition of44.01% and 36.11% for Eastern and Florida,but maintains that further adoption of alternatives is possible forCalifornia. The Party revised its nomination for 2010 from 1,191.815 to 1,103.422 t after bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG. After consideration of theParty’s responses received since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party for use with barrier films (150 kg/ha15 g/m2) for pathogens 175 kg/ha(17.5 g/m2) for nutsedge, based onthe circumstances of this nomination, pending further review. MBTOC also acceptedthe Party's reductions for uptake of iodomethane. The nomination for California of 952.543 t did not change and was based on the grounds that township capslimit further adoption of 1,3-D andcounty regulations affect use of high rates ofPic in some counties. The Party assumed a yield loss of 14%, however data inthe nomination showed that specific alternative treatments provideequal or higher yields compared to MB. Alternatives based on 1,3-D, Pic EC or shankinjected with or without metham sodium have been adopted. In theareas affected by township caps, trials with alternatives thatdo not contain 1,3-D (such asPic, Pic EC, Pic + metham, often with LPBF) provide yields thatare statistically comparable with MB (Ajwa et al., 2002, 2003,2004, 2005, 2006; Nelson et al.,2001ab; Shem-Tov et al., 2005, 2006ab). Pic EC provided an average 99% yield compared to MB, with low variance (TEAP, 2006; Porter, 2006). MBTOCrecommend a 10% reduction for adoption of these alternatives, increased adoption of 50:50 MB/Picinstead of 67:33 and 57:43 MB/Pic formulations (based onCal DPR data) and for full uptake of 1,3-D/Pic to township cap limits in all counties. MBTOC recognises that regulatory restrictions affect uptake of particularalternatives at effective rates (eg. 1,3-D/Pic, Pic EC and shank injected, LPBF, etc)and that full adoption of alternatives depends on regulatory issues. LPBFcannot be used with MB in California, but can be used with alternatives and may reduce the dosage rates required for effectivepathogen and weed control.MBTOC acknowledge that iodomethane is not yet registered. MBTOCencourages the Party to consider regulations which allow adoption of LPBF with MB andother techniques that result in improved efficacy at lower application rates and/or reduced emissions that would result in moreuse of alternatives undertownship cap, VOC regulations and county commissioner constraints on Pic. For Eastern and Florida,the nominations are based onmoderate to severe pestpressure (Meloidogynespp.,Pythiumspp.,Rhizoctoniaspp.,Phytophthora cactorum, Cyperusesculentus, C. rotundus, Loliumspp.) affecting 37% of the croparea, and small farm buffer zones on 40% of the area which affects use of 1,3-D formulations. MBTOC acknowledges that for theseregions the Party revisedits nomination to 47.862 t and 103.017 tonnes based on a significant adoption for uptake of iodomethane/Pic and other alternatives on both buffer and nonbuffer areas, including combinations of 1,3-D/ Pic and/or metham and/or herbicides, and LPBF as studies provide evidence for yields that are statisticallysimilar to MB (Ferguson et al., 2001; Norton et al. 2002; Ajwaet al. 2003, 2004, 2005,2006;Gilreath et al. 2003bc; Sydorovichet al. 2004, 2006; Driver et al.2005; López-Aranda et al. 2005; and studies inPorter, 2006). After further information provided by the Party, MBTOC acceptedthe area of use and rates ofMB use supplied by the Party (ie. 160 kg/ha or 16 g/m2) pending further review.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report49Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic comments provided in the CUN:CUN reportscosts for three next best alternatives for California, Florida,and Eastern United States. 1,3-D with chloropicrin were reported to reduce yield by 10% to 14%resulting in lower production leading to losses in net revenue.Planting and harvesting delays with alternatives are reported to lead to lower average pricesreceived in all regions, but are only shown in the revenue analysisfor California. In the eastern U.S. strawberry production areas a transition to high barrierfilms should be feasible also, although possibly at a slower ratecompared to Florida, primarily due to economic issues and diversity of the growing conditions.In addition, according to the California Strawberry Commission, the limitation in use of the primary alternative, 1,3-D/chloropicrin, is further limited by higherproduction costs due to longer production timeline for drip-appliedfumigation. Economic analysis using the partial budget methodology, has shown thatalternatives to methyl bromide are economically feasible inSE US, however the performance of the alternatives is not uniform throughout the region(Sydorovych, et al., 2006). The net returns of alternatives (eg.Pic) were much higher in the piedmont and coastal plain areabecause of the significantdifference in average marketable yields.UnitedStatesStrawberryrunners54.988 56.291 4.483 8.8387.944 None - 7.381 4.690MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends 4.69 tonnes for California, but does not recommend amounts for the south east. The CUN comprises 4.69tonnes for California and 2.691 tonnes for SE. The key pests affecting strawberry runners are weeds (purple and yellow nutsedge), fungi (RhizoctoniaandPythium sppin SE,Phytophthora,Verticillium in California), nematodes (root-knot, sting in CA). The CUN isfor MB use on 28 ha of 2172ha, however a largeproportion of hectares are exempted under QPS. MBTOC does not recommend use of MB for North Carolina and Tennesee, as MI/Pic formulations areregistered and are technically suitable (TEAP, 2006). MBTOC believes distribution of MI/Pic across 11 ha should be very rapidand training is possible withinthe two year period for total adoption. For California, MBTOCrecommends the nomination, but expects that future nominations will show reports of trials withkey over the last few years in order to satisfy the criteria ofDecision IX/6. In addition, MBTOC requests that locations receiving runners be specified in thenomination. The CUN statesthat MB at a dosage of 26.3 g/m2in CA and 25.5 g/m2 in SE is required to meet the certification standards for strawberryrunners. The Party's request exceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2)of MB which is considered effective for production of 'highhealth' strawberry runners using LPBF and other emission control technologies (TEAP 2005); however, California’s certificationrequirements specify minimumamounts of MB that must be applied. Furthermore, California regulations prohibit the use of LPBF with MB. The Party indicatesthat key alternatives include1,3-D + PIC followed by dazomet, PIC followed by dazomet and MI/Pic, but that these have not been sufficiently tested on a commercial scale. MBTOCencourages the Party to expedite the commercial scale testing ofthese alternatives as well as the registration of MI in CA andto consider changes to therecertification regulations in CA.50October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportCountry Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination was not based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in CUN:CUN identifies1,3-D with chloropicrin as the next best alternative with a 10-percent yield loss in California and the Southeastern States. Operating costs with 1,3-D pluschloropicrin are marginally higher in the Southeast and marginallylower in California. In both regions the alternative is predicted to result in a 46 percentdecrease in net revenues. Certification requirements for strawberry nurseries (e.g.,CDFA, 2003; TDA, 1999; NCDA, 1985) associated with the requestingstates are strict—zero tolerance for any damaging diseases andplant-parasitic nematodes. Sincethere are no markets for plantsthat do not meet thecertification standards, losses up to 100% are possible when inadequate pest control occurs. Failure to adequately manage pestsin transplants will jeopardizethe viability of the transplant and fruit production industries in the U.S., as well as the viability of fruit production in countries that purchase U.S. plants (e.g.,Canada, Mexico, Spain, countriesin South America, and others).UnitedStatesSweetPotatoesslipsNone 0.000 0.000 18.144 18.144 None - 18.144 14.515MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 14.515 tonnes for this usein 2010. 1,3-D, the alternative to MB, cannot be used in DecJan and township caps are exceeded in Nov which is the fumigation window for slips. MBTOC recognizes the importance of producing pest free seed stock.Test of reduced rates of 1,3-D are being carried out as this isthe preferred fumigant of growers. Growers also will have available a desirable nematoderesistant cultivar (Bienville) that will beavailable in California over the next two years should be useful in managing nematode pests. Uptake of such varietiesby growers and new alternatives such as non host cover crops followed by application of registered nematicides (ethoprop, aldicarb, metam sodium) isexpected to reduce the quantity of MB use and thus MBTOC recommends a reduced quantity for MB for 2010.MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination was not based on economic arguments. No economic data on alternatives given. Factors thatcontribute to losses include delayed planting due to use of alternatives; fallow; additional use of herbicides; losses due to weeds, insects and diseasesresulting in smaller, less attractive produce (quality loss).October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report51Country Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(1ExMOPand 16MOPQuantityapproved for2006 (16MOP+2ExMOP+17MOP)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommend-ation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)UnitedStatesTomatoes(field)2,876.046 2,476.365 2,065.246 1,406.484 1,003.876 None - 994.582Rev.737.584Interim (704.715)Final 737.584MBTOC comments 2008:MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 737.584 tonnes for this use in 2010. This represents 9.127 t for Michigan, 0.729 t forMaryland, 134.070 t for SE, 48.088 t for Georgia and 545.570 t for Florida. MBTOC acknowledged the reductions made by the Party. After consideration ofthe Party’s responses received since bilateral discussions at the 28th OEWG, MBTOC accepted rates nominated by the Party for use with barrier films (150kg/ha (15 g/m2) for pathogens 175 kg/ha (17.5g/m2) for nutsedge) based on the circumstances of this nomination, pending further review. MBTOC alsoaccepted the Party's substantial reductions for uptake of iodomethane. The key pest of tomatoesin the southeastern United States, including Florida andGeorgia are nutsedge, nematodes and P. capsici. In Florida and Georgia, karst topography limits the use of1,3-dichloropropene,which is considered as one ofthe best alternatives for these pests, on 55%of the growing acreage in Florida, 11% inGeorgia and 6% of the acreage in SE. The Party statedthat methamsodium and metham potassium are promising alternatives. MBTOC considers that alternatives are available for both karst and non-karst areas in SE, Floridaand Georgia which can be adopted at least inareas of moderate pest pressure (Nolinget al.2006; Santoset al. 2006; Noling and Gilreath 2004; Gilreath andSantos 2004bc; Gilreathet al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005bc, 2006; Rosskopfet al, 2005; Chellemi and Browne, 2006; McMillan and Bryan 1998, 1999, 2002;Rich and Olson 2003). The Party provided references which supporteduse of alternatives in combination with LPBF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies onpossible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2002), Johnstonet al (2002), Driver and Lows (2003). Acombination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, Devrinol, napropamide, halosulfuron, s-metalochlor) is considered as thebest alternative strategy in Florida. Hausbeck and Lamour (2004)and others have reported many efficient management strategiesto control Phytophthora onvegetables, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa) , cultural control (water management,plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc.) and use of registered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph,Zoxamide + Mancozeb,Copper hydroxide+dimethomorph) and seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl. MBTOC considers that further reductions in MBamount is possiblewith changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Picor less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films, however the reduction in the nominated amount wasnot based on use of these formulations. The use of grafting and resistant varieties are considered as alternatives in many Mediterranean countries (Belloetal., 2001).MBTOC comments on economics 2008:The nomination was based on economic arguments.Economic statements provided in the CUN:CUN reportsyield losses for 1,3-D with chloropicrin as the next best alternative ranging from 1.75% to 6%. Net revenue declines reported for all regions. Changes in pestcontrol costs are less than 4 percent of total variable costs so have little impact on economic measures. Missed market windowin Michigan cited as mainreason. Recent research by Gilreath and Santos (2008) has demonstrated that metam sodium fumigantsystem resulted in reduced root galls, nutsedgestands, and an increase in tomato yield. Assuming that a herbicide is used that is as effective as pebulate, growers using a 1,3-D + chloropicrin + herbicidemixture may suffer an average of 0 to 27% yield losses (Santos et al, 2006; Chellemiet al., 2006). As the United States has consistently stated, our experiencein that a 20% yield loss will force growers to no longer producea crop. However, in areas of low to moderate pest pressure, information if given a reasonabletime frame for the transition. The assessment of need was adjustedto account for this. In areas where karst features are not present it appears that tomatogrowers can use a combination of three pesticides applied sequentially (1,3-D, pic, and metam) and achieve yields that are comparable to those produced byusing methyl bromide for spring crops only.

## 52 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

# 5. MBTOC QSC: Final Evaluations of 2008 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide

MBTOC Quarantine, Structur es and Commodities met Sept ember 21 and intermittently through the week, in Chengdu China, in asso ciation with the Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation. The meeting was attended by 9 of the 19 MBTOC-QSC

members and one from MBTOC-S. An a dditional member attended the meeting through electronic voice line.

Several MBTOC QSC members were unabl e to attend the Chengdu meeting. MBTOCQSC members who did not attend the meeti ng were contacted by email for input and

discussion. Draft evaluations were circ ulated to MBTOC-QSC and MBTOC-S for vetting subsequent to the meeting.

MBTOC is obligated under Decision XV I/ 4 Annex 16 to meet twice a year when making CUN recommendations to ensure it ha s full information and to allow Parties to provide information. For this meeting, ema il discussion was held with members who were not present to obtain consensus.

MBTOC’s meeting was in association with the quadrennial meeti ng of the conference in Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products (CAF) in Chengdu. We appreciated the assistance of CAF co nference organizers in making meeting arrangements. Holding the MBTOC meeting in association with this conference

allowed MBTOC members to reduce time and tr avel costs since several members were presenting papers at the conference.

At the meeting, MBTOC completed its furthe r evaluation of CUNs from Australia,

Canada and the United States. The CUNs re-re viewed were: Australia rice and Canada pasta manufacturing. Additionally, MBTOC comp leted its re-evaluation of previously

‘unable to assess’ CUNs for Canada flour mills, and some USA commodities. MBTOC

corrected an error it made in the CUN for USA structures.

The Parties supplied additional information about the nominations following the publication of the TEAP May 2008 Progress Re port, during bilateral meetings with MBTOC during the Open Ended Working Gr oup meeting in Bangkok, Thailand and in writing following the OEWG.

5.1. Quarantine issues

Following the OEWG meeting, the Internati onal Plant Protection Convention released an updated draft ISPM 15 concerning the us e of methyl bromide and heat treatments against wood pests (IPPC, 2008). Since the dr aft was distributed to encourage public comment, and given MBTOC’s t echnical expertise in this field, discussion by MBTOC

members resulted in comments from those me mbers to their own Parties. The technical aspects of this draft were further discussed in China. Parties are encouraged to expand research which might lead to the approval of alternatives for MB quarantine use. MBTOC members remain open to assisti ng Parties with issues surrounding MB quarantine use.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 53 5.2. Regulatory and News Update Concerning MB Alternatives for Postharvest

Uses

Decision Ex. I/4 (9i) requires MBTOC “ To report annually on the status of reregistration and review of meth yl bromide uses for the appl ications reflected in the critical-use exemptions, including any info rmation on health effects and environmental acceptability” . Further, Decision Ex I/4 (9j) requires MBTOC “ To report annually on the status of registration of alternatives and substitutes for methyl bromide, with particular emphasis on possible regulatory ac tions that will increase or decrease dependence on methyl bromide”.

News is presented alphabetically by country. MBTOC QSC would welcome the submission of regulatory, research and other ne ws of adoption of MB alternatives from

Parties and others.

Australia - Sulphuryl fluoride fumigant is now registered in Austra lia for control of insects pests in a variety of situations including timber, and food handling and processing facilities, storage facilities a nd warehouses. Commodity storage structures containing cereal grains (including wheat and polished ri ce), dried fruit and nuts (tree nuts and peanuts), and baled hay an d pet food may be treated at a ct -product of up to 1500 g h m -3 

## . Several of the situations for which sulphuryl fluoride is now registered in Australia currently use methyl bromide, usually under QPS exemption.

Full scale demonstration trials are planned with carbonyl sulphide (COS), a potential methyl bromide replacement for disinfestati on of stored grain and similar commodities, under an Experimental Use Permit, as pa rt of progress to full registration.

An updated Australian standard for genera l fumigation was recently published. This standard includes proced ures for use of MB.

A standard for heat treatments for in sect control was published in 2008 by the Australian Quarantine Insp ection Service (AQIS, 2008) (http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/734424/atf-heat-treatstandard.pdf). Heat treatments can replace methyl bromide use in some circumstances, particularly for treatment of wood and wooden packing material, such as specified in

ISPM 15.

Australia also has a new public, electronic database listing MB alternatives; it is available on the AQIS website.

Canada : - Canada’s Pest Management Regul atory Agency (PMRA) published a note with requirements for mitigation measures to be added to site-specific fumigation management plans for the use of alumin um and magnesium phosphide. Similar sitespecific plans will be required for SF use. PMRA has changed sulfuryl fluoride’s registration status from experi mental to permanent registra tion and added new pests and

uses to the label. PMRA indicated an e xpectation to publish a decision on MRLs for fluoride residue in specific commodities by end of 2008.

China : China’s government grain storage capacity ranges between 1.5 – 2 hundred million tonnes, and in addition on farm grain storage allows for an additional 2.5 – 3

## 54 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## hundred million tonnes. Phosphine fumiga tion, alone and in concert with CO 2 

## were the most important contributors to the phase out of the use of MB in grain stores which China has accomplished (Zhu Changguo, Chin ese Cereals and Oils Association (CCOA), CAF 2008). Several researchers and managers of grain storage facilities reported at the 8 th 

## International Conference on Contro lled Atmospheres and Fumigation in Stored Products, considerable uptake of the use of controlled and modified atmospheres for grain storage, sometimes as substitutes for methyl bromide treatment. At the conference, Director Zhu of CCOA indi cated that in the future, China intends to direct more of its grain pest contro l focus on low temperature and quasi-low temperature storage as well as controlled at mosphere techniques. In addition, sulfuryl fluoride was registered for grain disinfesta tion in China in 2008. As a consequence of that approval there has been several co mmercial scale trials and some adoption, substituting for methyl bromide. Methyl bromide use on stored grain in China was

discontinued in 2007.

European Union : In September, EU regulation (EU 149/2008) reduced bromide food

residue tolerances and added fluorine to lerances. These changes allowed exporting

countries such as the United States to reduce methyl bromide use on exported commodities. Also in 2008, the European Commission published harmonized MRL for fluoride residue arising from sulfuryl fluoride fumigation (Directive 396/2005/EC) (Official Journal of the European Union, 2008).

France : In September 2008, France began using sulfuryl fluoride on commercial scale

for its fresh chestnut harvest. The use of this alternative replaces methyl bromide for the seasonal fresh chestnut crop.

New Zealand - is continuing PH3 trials for treatme nt of export logs and sawn timber. The use of MB is being reassessed by th e NZ Environmental Risk Management Authority.

United States – The sulfuryl fluoride label currently reads, "The raw agricultural and processed food commodities that may be fumigated with Profume include: almond, barley, beech nut, dried b eef, brazil nut, butternut, cashew, cheese, chestnut, chinquapin, cocoa bean postharvest, coconut, coffee bean postharvest, date (dried), eggs(dried), fig (dried), filbert, ginger root s postharvest, raisin, herbs & spices (dried) hickory nut, ham, legume vegetable (dried), macadamia nut, milk, millet, oat, other dried fruits (eg. apricots), peanut, pecan, pi nenut, pistachio, pop co rn, prunes (dried), rice, polished rice, rice bran, rice flour, rice hulls, sorghum, triticale, walnut, wheat, wheat bran, wheat flour, wheat germ, wheat milled byproducts, wheat shorts, wild rice. ProFume can be used to fumigate sites contai ning seeds of commodities listed above...”

This use of SF is currently being challenge d in ongoing litigation. The litigation appears to concern differences in opinion about the sa fety of the allowable levels of fluoride residues resulting from sulfuryl fluoride treatment of commoditi es and in structures that conduct food processing. The outcome of this litigation may have future implications of

the use of SF as an alternative treatment.

The US Environmental Protection Agency has reported that it anticipates publishing its response to comments and any modifications to its reregistration d ecisions for methyl bromide commodity treatments and methyl bromide soil treatments in January 2009.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 55 The USA has published a proposed regulation (7 CFR Part 319) which would allow the use of a systems approach which would avoi d the need for grapes from Chile to be fumigated with methyl bromide (Fed eral Register, Aug 27, 2008, pp 50577).

5.3. Details of evaluations

Parties have submitted ten CUNs in 2008 for the use of MB in structures and

commodities with a the total MB for non-QPS post-harvest uses of 321.808 tonnes when first submitted and of 277.746 as subsequently revised by the nominating Parties.

In the 2008 round, three nominations were for 2009 for a total MB amount of 7.14 tonnes and seven were for 2010 for a total MB amount of 270.606 tonnes, after revisions by Parties.

Of nominations for 2009, MBTOC recommende d 7.14 tonnes. Of the nominations for 2010, MBTOC recommended 269. 436 tonnes. MBTO C did not recommend 1.17 tones.

Table 5.1 provides the MBTOC QSC final r ecommendations for the CUNs submitted in

2008.56October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportTable 5.1 Final evaluations of CUNs for commodity orstructural treatments, submitted in 2008 for 2009 or 2010Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(ExMOP1andMOP16Quantity approvedfor 2006 (MOP 16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)AustraliaRice6.150 6.150 9.205 9.200 7.820 None - 7.820 6.65MBTOC recommends a reduced nomination of 6.65tonnes for 2010. This is a 15% reduction of the Party’s nominated amount of 7.82tonnes. To satisfyDecision IX/6 Australia should make progress in adopting alternatives. Numerous alternatives to MB are technically and economically feasible and in use inmany other countries for this product. In spite of availability,there has been no adoption of any alternatives in this sector.The Party indicates, and has suppliedan economic assessment report, showing it can not afford to adopt alternatives under the current drought and resulting low riceharvests. Successive years ofdrought and poor harvests have left this applicant unable to makeany investment or to receive bank loans. MBTOC continues to have questions about the costinput and processing assumptions that resulted in the economicconclusions. The economic assessment is based on the stated needto construct 100 new silosbefore phosphine can be adopted as an alternative. But the Partyalso indicates that a warehouse of 4,500 m2 could also be used, which MBTOC suggestswould cost much less. MBTOC suggests that, especially if there ispoor harvest in 2009 and 2010,that phosphine treatment couldbe completed in the sparetent capacity which is currently used forMB treatment. This approach would allow someadoption of phosphine in tents in the yard without the costs associatedwith the construction of new silos. The Party is encouraged touse different approaches to resolve the seemingly ongoing economic issues which are preventingadoption of alternatives. Australia’s transition plan does not include any adoption ofalternatives until such time as harvestvolume of >1 million tonnes isachieved. Even if the Party were to continue to achieve harvestof >1 MT the current transition plan will still result in MB use beyond 2013.MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states drought has made it impossible to undertake investment in phosphine facilities. Estimated costs for up to 100silos would be $Aus47 million. CUN states it would involve three years of transition, potentially complete in 2013. The economic analysis, based on an analysisby ACIL Tasman (2008), ably illustrates the difficulties that SunRice faces in funding these costs. However, CUN does not provide the annual cost of this capitalexpenditure, nor does it provide for any phasing of the construction costs. Even if borrowing or raising external capital is not feasible, the calculations of theannual cost have to be based on the amortised capital cost over the economiclife of the investmentCUN describes trials of alternatives, two of which, namely colddisinfestation and ‘packaging alteration with oxygen scavenging’ are regarded as economicallyinfeasible. In the former case, party expects costs to exceed $Aus100 million plus an unknown cost for electricity. In the latter case, party argues that operatingcosts increase from $Aus34 per tonne to over $Aus119 per ton.ACIL Tasman, 2008. An Analysis of SunRice’s Capacity to Investin Phosphine Fumigation Infrastructure: in particular their ability to fund the phasing out ofMethyl Bromide. Confidential report prepared for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the ArtsOctober 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report57Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(ExMOP1andMOP16Quantity approvedfor 2006 (MOP 16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)CanadaMills47(includedmills andpasta)34.774 30.167(includedmills only)28.650 26.913 None - 22.878 22.878MBTOC recommends the nominated amount of22.878 tonnes for treatment of particular flourmills in Canada in 2010. The amount nominated represents a15.3% decrease over the amount granted bythe Parties in 2009. In its Interim CUN report (TEAP Spring report 2008), MBTOC was unable to assess thisnomination because it was unclear about theamount of MB needed per mill and because MBTOC believed that only an amount equal to or less than onefumigation per mill per year was justified.Infestation is managed, both in Canada and elsewhere, by IPM approaches and other treatments so as to avoid theneed for additional fumigations. MBTOC notes, however, that sulfuryl fluoride, a key alternative treatment for this sector, isnot registered for food contact inCanada. In spite of regulatory restrictions on the use of sulfuryl fluoride, the Party has an extensive commercial-scale research program to trial alternatives. TheParty has since documented that the nominated amount provides for less MB than is required for one fumigation per mill, per year. The Party explained newregulatory procedures to ensure that MB use is managed througha sector-only transfer mechanism which ensures MB use is designated to the most needymills and that alternatives are adopted in the sector. The Party may wish to review the MBTOC special review of efficacy, costsand adoption of alternatives inflour mills in the TEAP Spring Report (MBTOC, 2008).MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN statesthe use of alternatives and associated building modifications would add 2 to 4 percent to manufacturingcosts that would be passed to Canadian consumers whose use accounts for 80% of annual shipments of milled grain products. Alsostated that there is noprogram for government financial assistance to millers (CanadianNational Millers, 2007). MBTOC notes that lack of governmentfinancial assistance programshas not been a consideration in assessments of economic feasibility. CUN did not provide detailed data on estimation of the 2%-4% cost increase. Regardlessof exact amount, the CUN suggests milled grain product market relationships are such that added costs would be borne in large part by consumers. In turn, thissuggests that if technical and regulatory barriers to adoption ofalternatives can be overcome, the Party will have no basis tothen assert economic infeasibility.CanadaPasta(seeCanadamills)10.457 6.757 6.067 None 4. 74 4.74MBTOC recommends the Party’s revised nomination of 4.74tonnes for pasta mills in Canada for 2009. This provision is to allow partial treatment of the threepasta mills in this CUN with methyl bromide, as part of orderlytransition to alternatives. MBTOC anticipates that the Party will continue its commercial scaletrials of alternatives in each facility included in the pasta mill sector. MBTOC believes that continued commercial scale trials of alternatives, if successful, wouldreplace the need for annual full site MB fumigations. If the trials are successful, the full MB amount recommended should not be required by this sector. At thesame time, MBTOC acknowledges that Canada has not established maximum residue levels for fluorine resulting from sulfuryl fluoride fumigation of pasta millsand lack of MRLs makes use of sulfuryl fluoride difficult. Canadahas indicated it will reduce domestic allocation based on theresults of its 2008 commercial58October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportIndustry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(ExMOP1andMOP16Quantity approvedfor 2006 (MOP 16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)scale trials and if registration status ofpotential alternatives changes before 2009.Interim reports submitted concerning SFtrials done late in 2007 havedemonstrated some effectiveness in these facilities and trials were also conducted in2008, but results are not yet available.It is clear that additional experiencewith this fumigant is required in these premises to optimise efficacy. It may be that moderate supplemental heating will be required to improve effectiveness ofthe SF treatments against the egg stage of pests. Heat treatments,either as full site or spot heat treatments may also be considered for these facilities as part oftheir IPM program (TEAP, Spring Progress Report, 2008). Heat has proven technically feasible in pasta facilities elsewhere (e.g. Italy) (Nomisma 2006).MBTOC comments on economics 2008: The Economicfeasibility section is marked N/A. Elsewhere it is asserted that heat is roughly twice the cost of MB.IsraelDates3.444 2.755 2.200 1.800None 2.100 2.100MBTOC recommends a CUE of 2.1 tonnes for dates in 2009 associatedwith rapid treatment of fresh dates at time of harvest. Thisrepresents an increase of 0.3tonnes over the amount of MB granted by the Parties for 2008. The increase in methyl bromide is due to projected increase in harvest of date varieties for whichheat or other treatments have not yet been developed. Israel continues an active research programme to resolve technical, logistical and economic difficultiesand adapt heat treatment for the non-Medjool varieties. If upcoming research on either heat or ethyl formate and carbon dioxide result in effective methods,Israel may consider reducing the amount granted in domestic allocation process.MBTOC comments on economics: CUN argues that heat treatment is economically feasible for Medjool dates, but that in depth feasibility studies still have to becarried out to determine the efficacy of thermal treatment on other varieties. No economic data is provided.IsraelFlour mills2.140 1.490 1.040 0.312 None 0.300 0.300MBTOC recommends a CUE of 0.3 tonnes for flourmills in 2009 as a one year transitionto spot heat treatment or expanded use ofphosphine. This representsa decrease of 0.012 tonnes over the amount ofMB granted by the Parties for 2008. Mills in Israel are not considered suitable for full site treatments due to ageand condition. Spot heat treatmenthas been determined to be effective for older mills in Israel. Techniques have been developed to assure its efficacy. Portableheat equipment has been purchased by a pestcontrol operator and is in commercial use inthe circumstances of this nomination.More equipment has alreadybeen ordered for import. For this reason MBTOC sees a need for oneyear to transition to heat. Additionally, phosphine is in use in most mills and its use couldbe expanded. Improvements in IPM and sanitation would improve pestcontrol in Israel mills. MBTOC sees no reason for continuedMB use in Israel flour millsafter the transition to heat or phosphine is made by 2010. TheParty is referred to the flour milling review report published in the 2008 MBTOC/TEAP SpringProgress Report for technical information on the conduct of spotheat treatments and recommendations to improve technical efficacy of alternatives.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report59Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(ExMOP1andMOP16Quantity approvedfor 2006 (MOP 16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)MBTOC comments on economics: CUN argues thatthe alternative used in North America andNorthern Europe of heating the entire mills is not economicallyfeasible in Israel because most of the millsare more than 20 years old, with poor structural upkeep of the mills and so thermal insulation is not possible.Furthermore, heating equipment is not available because of the small size of the market. However, the CUN argues that new spotheat techniques have becomeavailable from Canada, and thatthese are economically feasible. No economic data is provided.JapanChestnuts7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800 None - 5.400 5.400MBTOC recommends a CUE of 5.4 tonnes, the amount nominated for fresh chestnuts for 2010.This represents a 0.4 tonne decrease in MB nomination over theamount granted by the Parties for 2009. An extensive research program has resulted in the findingthat methyl iodide treatmentis technically effective for thisuse, and registration has been applied for. The registration process is progressing appropriately. Japan has set an acceptabledaily intake of methyl iodide of0.0034 mg/kg body weight. Progress has been made in improving the logistics of treatment to ensurethe use of MB is minimised while awaiting registrationresults. MBTOC knows of no other effective alternative treatment for fresh chestnuts.MBTOC comments on economics: The CUN statesthat, for economic feasibility evaluation,it is prerequisite for economic evaluation that a technically feasiblealternative exists. In fact there is no technically feasible alternative, and accordingly economic evaluation has not been carried out.UnitedStatesCommodities89.166 87.719 78.983 58.92145.623 None - 19.242 19.242MBTOC recommends the Party’s revised nomination of 19.242 tonnes for treatment of dry commodities as described by sub-sector. For walnuts, MBTOCrecommends the Party’s revised nominationof 5.85 tonnes. MBTOC recommends 2.009 tonnesfor dates. For dried fruit, MBTOC recommends the Party’srevised nomination of 9.399 tonnes; the Party reduced its nomination by 40% following the MBTOC Interim CUN report and an updated examination of sectorrequirements. MBTOC recommends 1.984 tonnes for dried beans. USG revised its walnut nomination in response to newly published EU regulations (EU149/2008 as of September 2008) reducing bromide tolerances andadding fluorine tolerances. Following its assessment of the EU regulation on trade ofwalnuts, the USG reduced its walnut nomination by 75%. The remaining amount will allow the US to quickly transition walnut treatment to SF for its main marketwhich is the EU. For dates, MBTOC recommends 2.009 tonnes. Since MBTOC’s interim recommendation, the US has provided extensivenew and significantinformation on this sector and on the date commodity as grown andharvested in the US. The CUN refers to treatment of California dates only. California dateharvest is reported to be 99% Deglet-Nour variety of 30% moisture content, harvested fully ripe with mostly reducing sugar content. On the basis of this newinformation, MBTOC’s is now of the understanding that the California date situation is similar to that of the North African Deglet-Nour harvest. The US hasconducted sulfuryl fluoride trials on datedisinfestation but the results are not yetknown. Given this new understanding of the date commodity and its harvest,MBTOC encourages the Party to significantly expand its researcheffort to resolve the date pest and storage problem. MBTOC recommends the Partys’ revisednomination of 9.399 tonnes for dried fruit, asector that includes raisins, figs anddried plums. Although phosphine is the main fumigant for dried fruit, USG60October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportIndustry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(ExMOP1andMOP16Quantity approvedfor 2006 (MOP 16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)indicates that MB is needed for some fumigations before processing when cool weather would unacceptably lengthen the phosphinefumigation time. In the caseof dried plum treatments, the initial processing (drying) involves exposure totemperatures (>60°C) sufficient to achieve disinfestation. The product may becomeinfested subsequently during storage and handling. In the absence of need for very rapid disinfestations, this reinfestation (mainly of moths) should be managedby currently available systems, particularly phosphine fumigation.Controlled atmosphere storage and treatment is used by manyEU countries for the samedried fruit commodities included in this CUN. Furthermore, theuse of phosphine in cooler weather could be accomplished by increasing the commoditytemperature in chamber fumigations beforeprocessing. Before reviewing any future dried fruit nomination, MBTOC will need a clearer understanding of theharvest-to-shipment channel for each commodity and how it impactson fumigation requirements. USGhas indicated that fumigationrequirements in coolmonths strains phosphine fumigation capacity and is difficult toconduct due to commodity temperature problems. Therefore we will need to know processingvolumes by month, available chamber capacity and bulk commoditytemperature during the cool months. In addition, MBTOC will require a complete economicassessment on the costs of increasing the temperature of dried fruit since USG reportsthat the applicant finds the cost of heating the commodity beforephosphine treatment in the cool months is unacceptable. MBTOC, however, has calculatedinitial estimated energy costs of 8 kw/tonne to raise the temp of bulkdried fruit by 7 ̊C. This initial estimation leads MBTOC to question whether the sector would indeed be economically constrained by the need to increasecommodity temperature to allow the use of phosphine. Phosphine treatment of dried fruit in coolermonths may require additionalfumigation chamber capacity,especially given the additional time to increase temperature.If inadequate chamber capacity is a constraint, any future nomination should provide an economicanalysis of the costs to provide the necessary chamber capacity.Additionally, the USG has indicated a potential problem if California regulations restrictingvolatile organic compound emissions impact the use of phosphine and therefore result in the need to use methyl bromide. If thiswere to become a factor in anyfuture nomination, MBTOC will need considerable further information on this matter. MBTOC recommends a CUE of 1.984 tonnes for2010 for the componentof this nomination relating to pest control treatment of dried beans directly after harvest. Concerning beans, there are no alternatives immediately available forrapid disinfestation of dried beans under the circumstances of the nomination, specifically the current treatment logistics. Fumigation with phosphine, whileregistered and effective, requires a treatment time that is too long to meetcurrent shipping and handling schedules; and sulfuryl fluoride lacks appropriateregistration. There appears to be scope for further reduction inthis component of the nomination through adoption of phosphinefumigation under revisedlogistics which MBTOC recommends be incorporated in any future CUN.MBTOC comments on economics 2008: CUN provides economic data onalternatives for walnuts and dried fruit other than dates. Phosphine fumigation costsmore because it takes longer to accomplish, leading to increased labor costs, it corrodes equipment and its use means sellers do not meet December holidayexport market window. CUN states walnuts and dried fruit all require substantial additional treatment time and subsequent lostrevenues if phosphine is used.Net revenues for alternatives are negative.CUN states that profit margin decreasesfrom 13.3% to –7.5% for walnuts and from 5%to -16.8% for dried fruits. Aneconomic analysis was not done for dates. In the case of driedbeans, response to MBTOC question states that cost of an additional facility would be $1.2m perunit, but annual costs were not provided.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report61Industry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(ExMOP1andMOP16Quantity approvedfor 2006 (MOP 16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)UnitedStatesNPMA foodprocessingstructures(cocoabeansremoved)83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.606 None - 37.778 37.778MBTOC recommends a CUE of 37.778 tonnes, the amount nominated for food processing facilities in 2010. This nomination represents a 30.82% decrease(excluding cocoa beans) over the amount granted by the Parties for 2009. The CUN now includes three sectors, after cocoa bean sector fully transitioned toalternatives in 2009. (1) MBTOC recommends 1.812 tonnes, the nominated amount, for cheese in storage. Cheese stores are only fumigated if USDAinspectors find mites in the cheese. If cheese stores were held at 7 ̊C instead of 10 ̊C, mites would not develop, but it is unknown what effect lowering storagetemperature would have on cheese maturation and quality. MBTOC knows of no effective chemical alternative for this use, but wenote that USG is conductingresearch on the effect of sulfuryl fluoride on mites in cheese. (2) MBTOC recommends 2.439 tonnes, the nominated amount for herb and spice processingfacilities. According to the CUN, 2010 is the final year of a four year transition inherb and spice processing sector. Spot heat treatment of processing machinerywith additional use of barrier methods to prevent pest escape would seem to be a good alternative for this sector. (3) MBTOC recommends 33.527 tonnes, theamount nominated for the processed food sector. This nomination represents a 45% reduction over the amount granted by the Parties for 2009. According to theCUN 2010 is the last year of a 4 year transition to alternativesin processed foods sector. This sector is expecting a registration of methoprene for use inpackaging materials which will assist in achieving post-processing pestcontrol.MBTOC comments on economics 2008: An economicanalysis was not conducted because theCUN reports the sector did not have an alternative registered.For food-processing facilities listed in the NPMA CUN, economic feasibility of such alternatives was not assessed due to the lack of revenue information, whichis necessary to quantify the economic impactsto food-processing facilities. There is a major change to this 2010 nomination from NPMA. An economic studyfound that sulfuryl fluoride is economicallyfeasible for cocoa beans (Adam 2007). Therefore NPMA has not requested methyl bromide for use on cocoa beansfor 2010. Sulfuryl fluoride is not always economically feasiblein all food processing facilities (Adam 2007), therefore that portion of NPMA’s request remains.Adam (2007) conducted a cost comparison of methyl bromide andsulfuryl fluoride in the fumigation of cocoa beans. It is an economic-engineering approach,which estimates of costs that “typical” firms would face under different scenarios (Adam 2007). Adam (2007) found that with regards to cocoa beans, if themethyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride are the same price per pound,then a sulfuryl fluoride fumigation costs 1% less than a methyl bromide. Sulfuryl fluoride ismore economical than methyl bromide for cocoa beans, primarily because less sulfuryl fluoride is needed (Adam 2007).Sulfuryl fluoride is highly dependent upon temperature, so should a facility need fumigation during cooler temperatures, it maynot be the product of choicebecause of increased heating costs. Also sulfuryl fluoride requires higher dosages for egg kill, and in many facilities killing eggs is paramount; this also maylead to higher costs. Cheese does not have a technically and economically feasible alternative to methyl bromide at this time.62October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportIndustry Quantityapprovedfor 2005(ExMOP1andMOP16Quantity approvedfor 2006 (MOP 16+ExMOP2+MOP17)Quantityapprovedfor 2007(MOP17+MOP18)Quantityapprovedfor 2008(MOP18+MOP19)Quantityapprovedfor 2009(MOP19)Quantitynominatedfor 2009(additionalor new)MBTOCrecommendation for2009(additionalor new)Quantitynominatedfor 2010(new)MBTOCrecommendation for2010 (new)UnitedStatesMills andprocessors483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418 None - 173.023 173.023MBTOC recommends 173.023 tonnes for US mills and processors in2010. MBTOC recommended this CUN inits interim report (TEAPMay2008 ProgressReport), but the USG pointed outan arithmetical error in the report. In the final tally, MBTOC double- counted the amount recommended for rice mills, althoughthe figure in the text box was correct. To clarify, for thissector, MBTOC recommends the following: Flour milling (144.790); Rice milling (14.511); Pet foodfacilities (13.722).MBTOC comments on economics: The CUN reportsheat will cost 1.5 times and sulfuryl fluoride costs 1.3 times the cost of MB treatment. Heat treatment isreported to result in lost operating days and thus lower throughput and gross revenues. Where sulfuryl fluoride is technicallyfeasible it results in loss of netrevenue of 57% (rice millers), but only 4% (bakeries) and 2% (pet food manufacturers and NorthAmerican Millers Association). Profit margins were added to theeconomic assessment. Sulfuryl fluoride is highly dependent upon temperature, so should a facility need fumigation during cold temperatures, it may not be theproduct of choice because of the increase in costs. Also sulfuryl fluoride requires higher dosages for egg kill, but in some facilities killing eggs is paramount,again contributing to higher costs. The CUN cites a new study that compares methyl bromide structural fumigation to an alternative. This paper uses aneconomic-engineering approach to estimate costs that “typical”firms would incur under alternative scenarios, as opposed to specific firms and situations (Adam2007).UnitedStatesCured pork67.907 40.854 18.998 19.66918.998 None - 4.465 4.465MBTOC recommends a CUE of 4.465 tonnes for specific cured (air-dried) pork products in 2010. This CUN has decreased by 14.533 tonnes over the amountgranted by the Parties for 2009. The USG is in the second of athree year multi-disciplinary research program to try to find non-MB methods to control mites inthis traditional cured pork product and associated storage houses. No chemical alternatives are registered for pest control inthese products. Although MBTOCdoes not know of methods that have been published as effective forthis situation. In the interestof contributing to researchideas, we can suggest: low oxygencontrolled atmosphere; or dipping the hams in oil and lardat 90oC as practised in Spain with a similar product.MBTOC comments on economics: No economic datagiven. This is a minor use and there is little economic incentive to develop alternatives.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 63 

# 6. References

ACIL Tasman (2008). An Analysis of SunRice’s Capacity to Invest in Phosphine FumigationInfrastructure: in particular their ability to fund the phasing out of Methyl Bromide. Confidential report prepared for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

Adam. B. 2008. Cost comparison of methyl bromide and ProFume for fumigating a food processing facility. A report to National Pest Management Association and Dow AgroSciences. Economic Consulting LLC.

Ajwa H.A., S. Fennimore, Z. Kabin, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, T. Trout, A. Kahn and O. Daugovish, (2004). Strawberry yield with chloro picrin and inline in combination with metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 3-6 November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Ajwa, H. A., S. Fennimore, G. Browne, F. Martin , T. Trout, J. Duniway, S. Shem-Tov, and O. Daugovish, (2005). Strawberry yield with various rates of chloropicrin and Inline applied under VIF. Proceedings of Annual Inte rnational Research Conference on Methyl Bromid e Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA.

Ajwa, H.A. T. Trout, S. Fennimore, C. Winterbottom, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, B. Westerdahl, R. Goodhue and L. Guerrero (2002). Strawberry production with alternative fumigants applied through drip irrigation systems. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 6-8 November 2002, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Ajwa, H.A., S. Fennimore, Z. Kabir, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, T. Trout, R. Goodhue, and L. Guerrero. (2003). Strawberry yield under reduced application rates of chloropicrin and InLine

in combination with metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November 2003, San Diego, California, USA.

Akkaya, F., A. Ozturk, A. Deviren, A. Ozcelik an d B. Ozkan. (2004). An economic analysis of alternatives to use of Methyl Bromide for greenhouse vegetables (Tomatoes, Cucumbers) and cut flowers (Carnation). Acta Horticulturae 638, 479-485.

Allen, M. (2007). Personal communication. Arystal lifesciences Inc.

AQIS (Australian Quarantine Inspection Service) . (2008). Heat Treatment Standard. May 26 (http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file /0006/734424/atf-heat-treat-standard.pdf).

Babadost M. and S.Z. Islam (2002). Bell peppers resistant to Phytophthora blight . Phytopathology

, (Abstr), 92: 55.

Bartual, R., Cebolla, V., Bustos, J., Giner, A., Lo pez-Aranda, J. M. (2002). The Spanish project on alternatives to methyl bromide. (2): The case of strawberry in th e area of Valencia. Acta Hort.

567: 431-434.

Bar-Yosef, B., T. Markovich, I. Levkovich and Y. Mor, (2001). Gypsophyla paniculata response to leachate recycling in a greenhouse in Israel Acta Horticulturae 554: 193 – 204

Batchelor, T.A. (2002). International and European Community controls on methyl bromide and the status of methyl bromide use and alternatives in the European Community. In: Proc.International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 5-8 March 2002, Sevilla. Office for Official Publications of the European Co mmunities: Luxembourg. pp. 35-39.

## 64 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report Batchelor, T.A. (ed.) (2000). Case Studies on Altern atives to Methyl Bromide. Technologies with Low Environmental Impact. UNEP. Paris. 77pp.

Bello, A., J. López –Pérez, M. Arias, A. Lacasa, C. Ros, M. Herrero and P. Fernánd ez. (2001). Biofumigation and grafting in pepper as alternativ e to Methyl Bromide. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Altern atives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA. Paper 31.

Bello, A., M. Arias, J. López-Perez, A. García-Álvarez, J. Fresno, M. Escuer, S.C. Arcos, A. Lacasa, R. Sanz, P. Gómez, M.A. Diez-Rojo, A.P. Buena, C. Goitia, J.L. De la Horra and C. Martínez. (2004). Biofumigation, fallow, and nematode management in vineyard replant. Nematropica

, Puerto Rico, 2004, 34 (1) 53-64.

Browne, G., J. Duniway, B. Westerdahl, F. Martin, H. Ajwa, and S. Fennimore. 2005. Effects of VIF and chloropicrin and Inline rates on survival of nematodes and pathogens in soil.

Budai, C. (2002) Case Study 1. Substrates for greenhouse tomatoes in peppers. In: Batchelor, T. (ed). Case Studies on alternatives to methyl bromide – Vol. 2. UNEP, Paris

CAF (2008) Proceedings of the 8t h International Conference on C ontrolled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products. Eds: Guo Daolin, Navarro S., Yang Jian, Tao Cheng, Jin Zuxun, Li Yue, and Wang Haipeng. September 21-26, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. Sichuan Publishing Group: Chengdu. 738 pp.

Canadian National Millers Association (2007). Comparative evaluation of integrated pest management, heat treatments and fumigations as alternatives to methyl bromide for control of stored product pests in Canadian flour mills. pp 48. March, 2007

Carey, W. and Godbehere, S. (2004). Effects of VIF and solvent carrier on control of nutsedge and on populations of Trichoderma at two nurseries in 2003. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA, 2003.

CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). 2003. Summary of California Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Nursery Stock. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps /PE/Nursery/NIPM.html; http://www.cdfa.ca.gov//phpps/PE/Nursery/ pdfs/nipm_3_regs_nsy_sees_insp.pdf

Cebolla, V., Bartual, R., Giner, A and. Bustos, J. (1999 ). Two years effect on some alternatives to Methyl Bromide on strawberry crops. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1999. 1-4 November, 1999, San Diego, California, USA.

Chellemi, D.O and G.T. Browne (2006). Area wide pest management project for methyl bromide alternatives. South Atlantic component. Pro ceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide A lternatives and Emissions Redu ctions, Orlando, FL, USA.

Chellemi, D.O. (2006). Effect of urban plant debris and soil management practices on plant parasitic nematodes, Phytophthora blight and Pythium root rot of bell pepper. Crop Protection 25: 1109-

1116.

Chellemi, D.O., J. Mirusso and J. Nance. (2004). Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives on commercial vegetable farms. Proceedings of An nual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emi ssions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA.

Culpepper, A.S., T.L. Grey and T.M. Webster. (2006). Purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus ) response to methyl bromide alternatives applied under four types of mulch [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society Annual Meeting, January 22-25, 2006.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 65 De Cal, A., Martínez-Terceno, A., López-Aranda, J.M. and Melgarejo P. (2004). Alternatives to methyl bromide in Spanish strawberry nurs eries. Plant Disease 88(2): 210-214.

Demski, J.W. (1981)

. Tobacco mosaic virus is seedborne in pimiento peppers. Plant Disease 65: 723-

724.

Driver J.G. and F. Lows, (2003). Management of Phytophthora crown and root rot in peppers (Abstr), Phytopathology , 93, S22

Driver, J.G., P. Brannen, M. Seitz, C. Schiemann, R.M. Welker and F.J. Louws. (2005). On-farm fumigant trials for strawberries in the southeas t. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA.

Duniway, J. M., Xiao, C. L. and Gubler, W. D. (1998) Response of strawberry to soil fumigation: Microbial mechanisms and some alternatives to Methyl Bromide. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alte rnatives and Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida, USA pp. 6-1.

EC, European Community, (2006). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of the critical uses of Methyl Bromide. Ma y 2006. European Community, Brussels.

EC. European Community (2008). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of critical uses of Methyl Bromide. July, 2008

Enebak, S., T. Starkey, and D. Mc Craw. (2006). Tree seedling quality and weed control with Basamid, MBR and methyl iodide. Annual Internationa l Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, Orlando, FL, USA.

Engindeniz, S. (2004). The economic analysis of growing greenhouse cucumber with soilless culture system: the case of Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 23, 5-19.

Federal Register (2008) Importation of grapes from Chile under a systems approach. 7 CFR Part 319. pp 50577 Aug 27, 2008

Ferguson, L.M., G.E. Fernandez, P.M. Brannen, J.M. Louws, E.B. Poling, O.B. Sydorovych, C.D. Safley, D.W. Monks, Z. Pesic-Van Esbroeck, D.C. Sanders and J.P. Smith. (2001). Alternative soil treatments for strawberry in the southeastern Un ited States. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California,

USA.

Fritsch, J. (1998). Strawberries crops in France: different methods to apply methyl bromide and metam sodium in open fields. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide

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

Fukuda, N. and Y. Anami. (2002) Substrate and nutrient level: effects on the growth and yield of melon

`Cucumis melo' in soilless culture. Acta Horticulturae 588: 111-117

Gilreath J.P., B. M. Santos, P.R. Gilreath, J.P. Jones and J.W. Noling (200 5). Efficacy of 1,3 D + Cloropicrin application methods in combination with pebulate and napromide in tomato. Crop

Protection 23:1187-1191

Gilreath J.P., B.M.Santos, P.R.Gilreat h, J.D. Busacca, J.E. Eger and J. M.Mirusso, (2006). Validation of a methyl Bromide alternative program for fresh market tomato, 2006, Journal of Agronomy, 5(2)

332-335

## 66 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report Gilreath J.P., J.M. Mirusso, J.W.No ling, J.P.Jones and P.R.Gilreath, (2002). Effectiveness of broadcast application of Telone C35 and Tilam+Devrinol in Tomato. Proceedings of the Florida Horticultural Society ., 115,276-280

Gilreath J.P.and B.M. Santos (2004a) Efficacy of 1,3 D plus chloropicrine in combination with hebicides on purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus ) control in tomato. Weed Technol., 19, 137-140.

Gilreath, J. (1999). Living without methyl bromide. Adapt now; thrive in 2005. Florida Farmer : September 1999.

Gilreath, J.P. and B.M. Santos (2004b). Herbicide dose 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. and B.M. Santos (2004c). Manejo de Cyperus rotundus (coquillo) con alternativas al bromuro de metilo, en tomate de mesa. Manejo Integrado de Plagas y Agroecología 71: 54-58.

Gilreath, J.P. and B.M. Santos. (2008). Managing weeds and nematodes with combinations of methyl

bromide alternatives in tomato. Crop Protection 27: 648-652.

Gilreath, J.P., B.M. Santos, M. Siham and J.W. Noling. (2005c). Effect of VIF on nutsedge control with metam, chloropicrin and 1,3-D, alone and in combination. Proceed ings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Altern atives and Emissions Reductions. San Diego, CA, USA

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

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper ( Capsicum annuum ). Crop

Protection 24: 903-908.

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

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper ( Capsicum annuum ). Crop

Protection . 24: 903-908.

Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling, T.N. Motis, E. Rossko pf and B.M. Santos (2003a). Long term effect of fumigant and herbicide combinations in bell pepper ( Capsicum annuum ). Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA

Gilreath, J.P., Mirusso, J.M., Jones, J.P., Rosskop f, E.N., Noling, J.W. and Gilreath, P.R. (2002b). Efficacy of broadcast Telone C- 35 in tomato. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Re ductions, Orlando, FL, USA.

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., Santos, B.M. (2005e). Cyperus spp. Control with reduced methyl bromide plus chloropicrin doses under virtually impermeable films in pepper. Crop Protection. 24: 285-

287.

Gilreath, J.P., T. N. Motis, B.M. Santos, J.M. Mirusso, J.P. Gilreath, J.W. Noling and J.P. Jones. (2005b). Influence of supplementary in-bed chloropicrin application on soilborne pest control in tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ). Crop Protection . 24: 779-784.

Gilreath, J.P., T.N. Motis, B.M. Santos and J.W. Noling (2003b). Retention of 1,3-dichloropropene and nutsedge control with Virtually Impermeable Film. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions Nov 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California USA.

Gilreath, J.P., T.N. Motis, J.W. No ling and J. Mertly (2003c). Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl bromide alternatives program in Florida in 2002 . University of Florida, Gainseville, FL, USA.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 67 Gilreath, JP, T.N. Motis, J. Norton and J. W. Noling. (2003d). Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl bromide alternatives program in Florida during 2002. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Altern atives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA.

Grinstein, A. & A. Hetzroni. (1991). The technology of soil solarization. Pp 159 – 170 In: J. Katan & J. E. DeVay (eds.) Soil Solarization. CRC Publications, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Grinstein, A. (1992). Introduction of a new agricultural technology - soil solarization - in Israel. Phytoparasitica 20 (Suppl.):127S-131S.

Gullino, M.L. and A. Garibaldi (2007). Critical aspects in management fo fungal diseases of rnamental plants and directions in research. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 46: 135 – 149

Gullino, M.L., A. Camponogara, G. Gasparrini, V. Ri zzo, C. Cini and A. Garibaldi (2003). Replacing methyl bromide for soil disinfestation. The Italian experience and its implications for other

countries. Plant Disease 87 (9): 1012 – 1019.

Hamill, J. E., Dickson, D. W., T-Ou, L., Allen, L. H. , Burelle, N. K. and Mendes, M. L. (2004). Reduced rates of MBR and C35 under LDPE and VIF for control of soil pests and pathogens. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 31 October - 3 November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 2-1.

Hanson, B., J. Gerik and S. Schneider (2006). Evaluation of reduced Methyl Bromide rates and alternative fumigants in field grown perennial crop nurseries. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide A lternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA,

2006.

Hausbeck M.K and Lamour K.H., (2004). Phytophthora capsici on vegetable crops: Research progress and management. Plant Disease 88(12):1992-1303

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

International Research Conference on Me thyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions,San Diego, California, USA

IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) (2008). Member consultation (regular process) - June 2008. Draft 1/7. International standards for phytosanitary measures. Revision of ISPM No. 15. Regulating wood packaging material in international trade.

Johnston S.A., Kleinn W.L. ,Fogg M.L., and Zimmerma n M.D, (2002). Varietal resistance evaluation for control of Phytophthora blight of pepper (Abstr). Phytopathology , 92, S40

Klose, S. (2008). Weed and diseas e control in California- grown fl oricultural crops without Methyl Bromide soil fumigation (Abstr.) In: Proceedings of the 2008 Joint Annual Meeting, 5 – 9

October 2008

Klose, S., J. Gerik, Ajwa, H. and C. Wilen (2007). Pacific area-wide MB alternatives program for cut flower and bulb crops. In: Proceed ings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA.

Leoni, S and Ledda, L. (2004). Influenza delle limitazioni nell'uso del bromuro di metilo sull'ortcoltura in serra della Sardegna. Workshop Internazionale: La Produzione in Serra dopo l'era del Bromuro di Metile. April 1-3, 2004, Comiso, 253-263.

Lieten, F. 2004. (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.

## 68 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report Little, D.A., M.W. Marshall, B.H. Zandstra and R.J. Ri chardson (2006). Herbicide alternatives to Methyl Bromide in herbaceous perennial production. In: Proceedings of Annual In ternational Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Re ductions, Orlando, FL, USA

López-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Lo s Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., Bascon, J., Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternativ es to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva (Spain). 2003 Results. Annual Internatio nal Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, California, USA pp. 33-1.

López-Aranda, J.M., B.M. Santos, J.P. Gilreath, L. Miranda, C. Soria and J.J. Medina. (2005). Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California, USA.

Martyn, R.D. (2002). Monosporascus root rot and vine decline of melons. Plant Disease Lessons. The

Plant Health Instructor . DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2002 0612-01. American Phytopathological Society.

Matsuo K. and Y. Suga. (1993) Control effect of soil disinfectant and crop rotation on necrotic spot

disease of melon. Proceedings of the Association of Plant Protection Kyushu 39:43-47

MBTOC (1994). 1994 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP,

Nairobi.

MBTOC (1998). 1998 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP,

Nairobi.

MBTOC (2008). Current Status of Technical E fficacy, Costs and Adoptio n of Methyl Bromide Alternatives in Flour Mills. In: TEAP Prog ress Report, May, 2008, UNEP, Nairobi.

MBTOC, (2007). 2006 Assessment Report of the Me thyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi 482 pp.

MBTOC. (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of th e Methyl Bromide Techni cal Options Committee. UNEP, Nairobi. 468pp.

McKenry, M. T. (1999) First-Year Nematode Control and Tree Growth Using Treatments Appropriate

for Buffer Zones. In: Annual Internationa l Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, USA.

McKenry, M., T. Buzo, and K. Stephanie (2006). Replanting stone fruit orchards without soil fumigation. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA.

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan. (1998). Vapam as an alternative to methyl bromide for south Florida tomato growers. Proceedings of Annual Interna tional Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA.

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan. (1999). Effect of metam sodium and methyl bromide on root-knot, weeds and yield in Florida tomato. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan. (2002). Efficacy of Vapam and Kpam fumigation for Florida tomatoes. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions Orlando, Florida, USA.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 69 McSorley, R., K.H. Wang and N. K okallis-Burelle. (2006a). Solarization as an alternative to Methyl

Bromide in Florida floriculture. In: Annual International Research Conference on MethylBromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 6-9, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA337. 2004.

McSorley, R., K-H. Wang and S.K. Saha. (2006b). Can solarization match methyl bromide fumigation in sites colonized by fungi? Phytopathology 96(6), suppl., p. S187

Melgarejo, P., A. De Cal, T. Salto, M. L. Mar tínez-Beringola, A. Martínez -Treceno, E. Bardon, J. Palacios, M. Becerril, J.J. Medina, J., Gálvez an d J.M. López-Aranda, (2001). Three Years of Results on Chemical Alternatives To Methyl Bromide For Strawberry Nurseries in Spain.

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromid e Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA pp. 93-1.

Melgarejo, P., A. Martínez-Treceño, A. de Cal, T. Salto, M.L Martínez-Be ringola, J.M. García-Baudín, I. Santín, E. Bardón, J. Palacios, M. Becerril, J.J. Medina and J.M. López-Aranda (2003). Chemical alternatives to MB for strawberry nurseries in Spain. 2002 Results. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, November 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA.

Minuto, A., A. Garibaldi and M.L. Gullino, M.L. (2003). Chemical alternatives to Methyl Bromide 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.

Mutitu, E., R. Waswa, N. Musembi, J. Chepsoi, J. Mutero and M. Barel (2006). Use of methyl bromide alternatives in small scale vegetable sector in Kenya. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Project – Kenya. GOK-GTZ-UNDP project. Nairobi, Kenya.

NCDA (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services), (1985). Nursery Regulations, Nu rsery Certification. http://www.ncagr.com/plantind/Regs/48a1200.htm

Nelson M. et al. (2001a). Marketab le berry yield cv. Camarosa – Oxnard trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries.

Nelson M. et al. (2001b). Marketable berry yield cv. Diamante – Salinas trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries.

Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. (2004a). Use of virtually impermeable plastic mulches (VIF) in Florida strawberry. In: Annual International Research Conference 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 International Re search Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions , 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, USA. pp. 14-1.

Noling, J.W., J.P. Gilreath and D.A. Botts. (2006). Chapter 23. Alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation for Florida vegetable production. In: Olson, SM. et al. 2006. Vegetable Production Handbook for Florida. University of Florida, Ins titute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)

Extension.

Noling, JW and Gilreath, JP. (2004b). Evaluations of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control and tomato yield in field microplots. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alte rnatives and Emissions Reductions, orlando, Florida, USA.

## 70 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report Nomisma. (2006). Pest Control in the Ita lian food industry: Selected case studies.

Norton, J., J. P. Gilreath and M. Nelson. (2002). 2000-2001 IR-4 MBA strawberry trial. Chancey Farm, Dover / Plant City, FL. USDA IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program for Minor Crops.

Official Journal of the European Union (2008). Amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto. March 1, 2008. (EU 149/2008 of January 29, 2008)

Porter, I., R. Brett B. Wiseman and J. Rae. (1997). Methyl bromide for preplant soil disinfestation in temperate horticultural crops in Australia in perspective. Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-5 November, San Diego, California

USA.

Porter, I.J., L. Trinder and D. Partington. (2006). Special Report Validating the Yield Performance of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Preplant fumigation. TEAP/MBTOC Special Report, UNEP Nairobi, May 2006 97pp.

Quicke, M., T. Starkey, and S. Enebak. (2007). Area-wide demonstration of alternatives: forest nurseries in the southern US. In: Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. San Diego, CA, USA

Rea, E., A. Salerno and F. Pierandr ei (2008). Effect of substrate and nutrient solution reuse on ranunculus and anemone plant production in a closed soilless system. Acta Horticulturae 779: 541 – 546.

Rich, J.R. and S.M. Olson (2003). Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide in North Florida U.S.A tomato production. Nematropica . 33, 157-163.

Ristaino J.B. and S.A. Johnston. (1999). Ecologically based approaches to management of Phytophthora blight on bell pepper. Plant Disease , 83, 1080-1089

Rosskopf, E.N., D.O. Chellemi, N. Kokalis-Burelle and G.T. Church. (2005). Alternatives to methyl bromide: A Florida perspective. APSnet Feature, June 2005.

Sakuma, H. and Suzuki, K. (1995) Development of energy-saving hydroponics systems without requiring electricity. JIRCAS J. 4: 73-77.

Santos, B., J.P. Gilreath and T.N. Motis (2005). Managing nustedge stunt nematode in peppers with reduced Methyl Bromide plus chloropicrin rates under Virtually Impermeable Films. HortTechnology 15(3): 596 - 599

Santos, B.M. and J.P. Gilreath (2004). Cyperus spp. control with reduced Methyl Bromide rates under VIF in pepper. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2004.

Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath, J.M. López-Aranda, L. Miranda, C. Soria, and J.J. Medina. (2007). Comparing Methyl Bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Journal of Agronomy 6(1): 225 - 227

Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath, T.N. Motis, J.W. Noling, J.P. Jones and J.A. Norton. (2006). Comparing methyl bromide alternatives for soilborne disease, nematode and weed management in fresh

market tomato. Crop Protection 25: 690-695.

Savvas D., and H. Passam (eds) (2001). Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals

. Embryo Publications, Athens, Greece, 242 pp.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 71 Schneider, S., Trout, T., Browne, G. and Ajwa, H. (2004). Vineyard replant - performance of methyl bromide alternatives over time. Pp 8-1 - 8-5 In : Annual International Research Conference on Methyl bromide Alternatives, Orlando, Florida, USA

Shem-Tov, S, H.A. Ajwa, S.A. Fennimore and J. Hunzie. (2006b). Strawberry production and weed

control in soils treated with basamid and chlo ropicrin. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Re ductions, Orlando, FL, USA.

Shem-Tov, S., H.A. Ajwa and S.A. Fennimore. ( 2005). Effect of alternative tarp and fumigants combinations with metam sodium on strawberry yield. In: Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Altern atives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, CA, United States.

Shem-Tov, S., H.A. Ajwa and S.Fennimore (2006a). St rawberry yield and weed control with alternative fumigants applied in combination with metam under various tarps. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Altern atives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL,

USA.

Sonneveld, (2002). Composition of nutritional solutio n. In: Savvas D., and H. Passam (eds) (2002). Hydroponic Production of Vegetables 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 Ital y. Proceedings of Inte rnational Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon.

Stanghellini, M.E., D. M. Ferrin, D. H. Kim, M. M. Waugh, K. C. Radewald, J. J. Sims, and H. D. Ohr (2003). Application of preplant fumigants via drip irrigation systems for the management of root rot of melons caused by Monosporascus cannonballus Plant Disease 87(10): 1176 - 1178

Sydorovych, O., C. D. Safley, L. M. Ferguson, E. B. Poling, G. E. Fernandez, P. M. Brannen, D. M Monks and F. J. Louws, (2006), Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for the production of strawberries in the Southeastern United States. HortTechnology 16(1): 118- 128

Sydorovych, O., Safley, C.D. , Poling, E.B., Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M. and Louws, F.J. (2004). Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry production. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, FL, USA.

TDA (Tennessee Department of Agriculture and Plant Industries). 1999. Rules of Tennessee Department of Agriculture and Plant Industries. Regulations Governing Strawberry Plant Grower s and Dealers. Ch apter 0080-6-2. http://state.tn.us/sos/rules/0 080/0080-06/0080-06-02.pdf

TEAP (1999). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, April 1999. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme,

Nairobi.

TEAP (2004). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2004. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme,

Nairobi.

TEAP (2006) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2006. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme,

Nairobi.

## 72 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report TEAP (2008) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, May 2008. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete th e Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Tostovrsnik, N.S., A.L. Shanks, I.J. Porter, S.W, Ma ttner and R.W. Brett (2005). Facilitating the adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide in Australian horticulture. Pp 13-1 – 13/4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Br omide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 31 Oct – 3 Nov, San Diego California USA.

Tsuda, S. (2006) An Approach for Development of Environment-Friendly Techniques to Control SoilBorne Viral Diseases. Proceedings of Vegetable and Tea Science . No.3. Final Issue: 29-34

Uhlig, R.E., G. Bird, R. J. Richardson and B. H. Zandstra (2007). Soil fumigants to replace methyl

bromide for weed control in ornamentals. HortTechnology 17: 111 – 114.

UNEP (2007). Methyl Bromide quarantine and pre-shipment uses. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya 15 pp. http://o zone.unep.org/Publications/UNEP-OzoneSecretariat-MP-B rochure.pdf

Urrestarazu, M. (2004). Tratado de cultivo sin suelo Mundi Prensa Libros, España, 928 pp. 3a edición.

Urrestarazu, M. (2005) International symposium on soilless culture and hydroponics. Acta Horticulturae 557, 565pp

Vos, J and Bridge, J. (ed.) (2006). Cases of methyl bromide alternatives used in commercial practice.

CAB International.

Wetter, C. (1984)

. Serological identification of four tobamovirues infecting pepper. Plant Disease 68:

597-599.

Zhu, C (2008). Current situation and development tendency of controlled atmosphere and fumigation technology in Chinese grain stor age. In: Proceedings of the 8 th 

### International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products. Chengdu China, September 22-27,

2008.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 73 

# 7. MBTOC Work plan for 2009

7.1 Introduction

The Parties, at their Sixtee nth Meeting, decided to adopt the elements related to procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) related to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of MB as set out in Annex I to the repo rt of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties (16MOP) (decision XVI/4).

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP states that annual work plan should be drawn up by MBTOC (and supported by the Ozone Secretariat) in consultation

with TEAP and that MBTOC should submit it to the Meeting of the Parties each year. In accordance with paragraph 15 of Anne x I to the report of 16MOP, MBTOC has prepared its 2008 work plan in consultati on with TEAP and with support of the Ozone Secretariat. The timelines for the work pl an are contained below for consideration by the Parties at their Twentieth Meeting.

Paragraph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP also specifies that a summary report

of MBTOC activities over the previous year (par agraph 15(h)) should also be indicated in the MBTOC plan. In accordan ce with this requirement, this summary report is provided.

7.2 MBTOC Workplan for 2009 - Details

Paragraph 1 of Annex I to the report of 16 MOP provides the schedule for the MBTOC assessment of critical-use exemp tions. In accordance with the schedule, MBTOC envisages its activities in 2009 as set out in Table 7.1 below. The elements of the work plan as specified under paragr aph 15 of Annex I to the report of 16MOP have been incorporated. The schedule of th e work to be carried out by MBTOC on the MBTOC composition is also in cluded. The list of current membership of MBTOC is

contained in Annex VII.

The work plan also includes an indica tive budget for the activ ities in 2009, which

relate to evaluation of CUNs. Parties ha d indicated in the 2006 approved budget that 2006 is the last year for providing suppl emental funding to MBTOC and for 2007 and 2008, no supplemental funding was provided for MBTOC. MBTOC would like to bring to the attention of the Parties that su ch financial assistance is needed to ensure the effective operation of MBTOC in contin uing to carry out the evaluation of CUNs. In particular, provision of some funding fo r non-Article 5 MBTOC members to attend meetings is str ongly recommended.

TEAP co-chairs authorised only two of MBTOC QSC Artic le 5 members and five

MBTOC S Article 5 members to attend their second meetings of the year. Additionally, several non Ar ticle 5 members of MBTOC QSC were not funded by the organizations that sponsor their participation.

Annex 1 of Decision XVI/4 outlines a sc hedule by which two MBTOC meetings are envisioned per year to evaluate CUNs. The schedule further allows MBTOC to seek

## 74 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## further information from Parties and in turn for Parties to provide additional information in response to MBTOCs inte rim recommendations made during the first meeting. UNEP and Party funding of MB TOC members would allow the committee to conduct its tasks appropriate ly and complete its work.

Although most non Article 5 members are funded by their governments or other sponsors, some members (particularly in the QSC sub-committee) do not have funding to attend meetings. Some non Article 5 members presently use personal funds or funds from research programs to atte nd MBTOC meetings. As mentioned in the previous workplan of MBTOC as well as in the Progress Reports of TEAP, the

financial burden on individual members and/or their research inst itutions has become increasingly unsustainable.

In 2008, MBTOC still required tw o 'face-to-face' meetings ow ing to (i) review of a large number of CUNs, (ii) more clearly and completely reference the reasons for decision making in reports, (iii) to conduct field trips to understand the circumstances of particular nominations; (iv) and time to prepare responses to specific requests by

Parties.

As a result of lack of funding only local site visits were cond ucted in those places where MBTOC meetings took place, for exampl e Israel. Further, it was necessary to conduct a number of importan t tasks off -line. This re presents extra effort and difficulties and often required MBTOC members to work extensively outside regular

office hours.

Table 7.1. MBTOC work plan and indicative budget: 2009

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 2009

2. The nominations are forwarded to MBTOC co-chairs for distribution to the subgroups of appointed members - 7 February 2009

3. Initial summarization of the nominations -

4. Nominations in full are assessed by the subgroups of appointed members. The init ial findings of the subgroups, and any requests for additional information are forwarded to

the MBTOC co-chairs for clearance

5. MBTOC co-chairs forward the cleared advice on initial findings and may request additional information on to the nominating Party concerned an d consult with the Party on the possible presumption therein - 21 February 2009

6. Nominating Party develops an d submits its response to

the MBTOC co-chairs - 7 March 2009

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 75 Tasks and actions Indicative budget needs where applicable Indicative completion date Dates of meetings

7. MBTOC Meeting No 1

• To assess nominations, including any additional information provided by the nominating Party prior to the MBTOC meeting under action 5 and any additional 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

• Bilateral meetings Funds for travel of 3 non-A5 QSC members: US$10,000 (Meeting Costs can be

covered under the

normal Ozone Secretariat budget) March-April 2009 Tentative: Soils: Morocco (Agadir or Rabat); QSC: USA (California),

Netherlands or Philippines

8. MBTOC provides its draft recommendations on the

CUNs to TEAP End of April, 2009

9. TEAP Meeting: To assess the MBTOC report on

critical-use nominations and submits the finalised interim report on recommendati ons and findings to the

Secretariat. End April, 2009 To be determined

10. The Secretariat posts the finalised report on its web site

and circulates it to the Parties - May 2009

11. OEWG Bilateral Discussions: Nominating Party has the opportunity to consult with MBTOC on a bilateral basis in conjunction with the Open-ended Working Group meetings July 2009 Geneva,

Switzerland

12. 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 OEWG, and provides additional information should it wish to appeal against a critical-use nomination recommendation by

MBTOC/TEAP - August 2009

13. MBTOC Meeting No 2: Reassess only those critical-use nominations in the “unable to assess” category, those where additional information has been submitted by the nominating Party and any critical-use

nominations for which additional information has been requested by the OEWG

• finalise the report, including notice of any proposed new standard presumptions to be applied by MBTOC

• conduct any bilateral consulta tions requested by Parties

• draft work plan and budget for MBTOC for 2007 Funds for travel of 3 non-A5 QSC members US $8,500 Meeting costs: $US

6000. September 2009 Tentative: Soils: US (California); QSC: USA (California),

Netherlands or Philippines

14. MBTOC draft final report considered by TEAP, finalised and made available to Parties through the

Secretariat - End September, 2009

15. 21st Meeting of the Parties November, 2009 Tentative: Egypt Total budget: US$ 24,500



## Composition of MBTOC

16. At MBTOC meetings (Ala ssio: August 30-September 2; Chengdu, Sept 26), MBTOC has updated the list of members and their expertise. Updated list attached separately .............

17. The Secretariat provides an update on its website of this list of members and expe rtise required for TEAP and its

TOCs’. ...............

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 77 

# 8. Summary Report of the Activiti es Carried out by MBTOC in

2008

• Initial summarization of the CUNs (initi al sorting and reco rding carried out by the Secretariat).

• Preparation of questions for Parties. Assessment of responses received.

• First meeting of MBTOC on the assessm ent of the CUNs - Tel Aviv, 14-18 April 2008. One non A5 member resigned and one non A5 member joined the committee. Interim recommendations and report prepared for the Parties. Bilateral meetings were held with USA.

• Site visits: MBTOC-S conducte d a field trip to observe alternatives adopted by vegetable and flower growers includi ng substrate producti on and alternative fumigants. MBTOC-QSC conducted a site visit to a flour mill in Tel Aviv

• TEAP meeting - Vienna, 21-25 April 2008.

• Completion of the interim report for cons ideration by the 28 OE WG as part of 2008 TEAP Progress Report of April 2008.

• Completion of the special review on Current Status on Efficacy, Costs and Adoption of Alternatives in Flour Mi lls published in Spring TEAP report.

• 28 OEWG (Bangkok, 7- 11 July 2008). B ilateral meetings with Australia, Canada, Japan and USA.

• MBTOC-S reorganization: Two non A5 members and two A5 members were

retired from the committee.

• Metaanalysis biometricians in Australia held a teleconference with a large US delegation to discuss further procedural issues related to the metaanalysis.

Owing to requests by the Parties and new in formation submitted, the sub committees required a second meeting to review new in formation from Parties. To assist logistics, meetings were held in conjuncti on with major international conferences that were attended by many MBTOC members.

• MBTOC-S met in Alassio from 30 Aug - 2 Sept. 2008. A bilateral discussion

was held with the USA.

• MBTOC-QSC met in Chengdu on 21 September, 2008 and intermittently during the week during the meeti ng on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation..

• Preparation of the final report on the C UNs for consideration by the Parties at

their 20 th 

## Meeting.

## 78 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

# ANNEX I: Decision IX/6

1. To apply the following criteria and pr ocedure in assessing a critical methyl bromide use for the purposes of control me asures in Article 2 of the Protocol:

(a) That a use of methyl bromide s hould qualify as “critical” only if the nominating Party determines that:

(i) The specific use is critical becaus e the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant ma rket disruption;

and (ii) There are no technically and ec onomically feasible alternatives or

substitutes available to the user th at are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination; (b) That production and consump tion, if any, of methyl br omide for critical uses should be permitted only if:

(i) All technically and economically feasible steps ha ve been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl
bromide; (ii) Methyl bromide is not availabl e in sufficient quan tity 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 consid eration the circumstances of the particular nomination and the specia l needs of Article 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert re sources, institutional capacity, and information. Non-Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to deve lop and deploy alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that feasible alternatives 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 sources for assistance in identifying, evaluating, adapting and dem onstrating such options;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review

nominations and make recommendations based on the criteria established in paragraphs 1 (a) (ii) and 1 (b) of the present decision;

3. That the present decision will apply to Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties not so operating only after the phas e-out date applicable to those Parties.

Para. 2 of Decision IX/6 does not assign TEA P 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 alternatives or

substitutes available to the 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).

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 79 

# ANNEX II: Decision XVI/4

Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Annex I), Prague, 22–26 November 2004), paragraph 15.



## A. Working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee relating to the evaluation of nominations for critical uses of methyl bromide

15. An annual work plan will enhance the transparency 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 dates 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 time lines relating to nominations;

(f) Information related to financial needs, while noting that financial

considerations would still be reviewed sole ly in the context 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 reasons 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 pres umptions that MBTOC seeks to apply in

its future assessment of critical-use nominations, for approval by the Meeting

of the Parties.80October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportANNEX III: Relative effectiveness ofMB/Pic formulations applied in combination with low permeability barrierfilms (LPBF) compared to the commercial standard MB/Pic formulation appliedunder standard low densitypolyethylene films (LDPF).Untreated Methyl Bromide/ChloropicrinMixtures (Product rateper 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 2004Navalmanzano7850:5040080Fusarium,Phytophthora,Pythium,Rhizoctonia andVerticilliumSpainVinderosStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec6850:50400114102Melgarejo et al 2003Navalmanzano3450:504007675Fusarium,Cladosporium,RhizoctoniaSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec50:50400972003 resultsLopez-Aranda et al 2003Malvinas50:50400991998 FusariumSpainValenciaStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec59Not Spec60094At 10cm &30cmBartual et al 200253Not Spec600931999 resultsSpainAvitorejoStrawb. FruitVIF - Not Spec8067:33400112Lopez-Aranda et al 2001Tariquejo5467:33400106Meloidogyneand weeds(unspec.)SpainMoguer/CartayaStrawb. RunnerVIF - Not Spec50:5039299Inoculum notspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 2001bSpainCabeza, Nav.Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec7467:33400105, 921998 Two sitesMelgarejo et al 2001Arevalo, Nav.8450:50400104, 1041999 results,nurseriesVinaderos, Nav.4950:5040095, 1232000 results,nurseriesSpainHuelvaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec8267:334001011997-1998Inoc.unspecifiedLopez-Aranda et al 20007267:334001021998-1999 Inoc.Unspecified6867:334001091999-2000 Inoc.UnspecifiedOctober 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report81Untreated Methyl Bromide/ChloropicrinMixtures (Product rateper 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 66SpainMoncadaStrawb. 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 and Santos 2005eVIF 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,high pathogenpressureUSAFloridaTomatoVIF - Not Spec67:33392"No significant reduction in yield"Noling et al 2001USACaliforniaStrawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec4567:33364116Duniway et al 1998USAGeorgiaNurseriesVIF – not spec67:33389See referenceCarey and Godbehere,2004USACaliforniaRoses67:3398 ̈2392392See referenceHanson et al, 2006USAFloridaPepperVIF – not spec67:33392See referenceSantos and Gilreath, 2004USAFloridaPepperVIF – not spec67:33392See referenceSantos et al, 2005USACaliforniaOrnamentalsVIF – not spec67:33392See referenceKlose 2007, 2008Unweighted averages (relative % yield)669499939310210310810491

## 82 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Figure 1. Relative yield of crops (straw berries, tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupes) grown under barrier films with different MB/Pic formulations compared to the standard commercial treatment using standar d polyethylene from trials between 1998

and 2004

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



### ( ▲ MB/Pic 98:2; ● MB/Pic 67:33; ♦ MB/Pic 50:50; ■ MB/Pic 33:67). Data from Table 3.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report83ANNEX IV: Methyl bromide reduction trends, based onhistorical rates of adoption in the EC(EC National Management Strategy, 2008. CUNA =Critical Use Nomination Assessment; MS = Member State of the EC)Major MBCUEsin 20061991MB useestimate2(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)2005MB use3(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)2008MB quotaallocation(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)Short-listed existing MBalternatives4Historical rates of adoptionin individual MSsfrom Table 4.3, Annex 7.A(ha/year per MS)Feasible adoption rates(derived from historicalrates) and currentstatus of CUEsFumigants: 1,3-D, PIC, MethamSodium, Dazometup to 1193 ha/year/MSGrafting on resistant root stock up to 1000 ha/year/MSTomato > 4980 t> 7000 ha> 12 MS733 t2423 ha4 MS0 t0 ha0 MSSubstrates up to 1570 ha/year/MSRate of up to 1193 +1570 = 2763 ha/year/MSAdoption completed byend of 2007Fumigants: 1,3-D, PIC, MethamSodiumup to 2090 ha/year/MSSubstrates up to 80 ha / year/MSStrawberryfruit~ 3420 t~ 5200 ha(>8000 hain yr 2000)> 12 MS497 t3879 ha4 MS0 t50 ha0 MSResistant varieties no dataRate of up to 2090 + 80 =2170 ha/year/MS.Adoption completed forcommercial strawberryfruit production by end of20062Refer to Section 3 for data.3MB use data from EC Accounting Framework Report. Hectares calculated on doses stated in CUNs and CUNAs. If not stated, estimated based on mean dosage of MBfor this use (tomato: 300 kg/ha; strawberry runners: 300 – 470kg/ha; strawberry fruit: 100 – 300 kg/ha; cutflowers: 200 – 500kg/ha; peppers: 150 – 300 kg/ha; mills andfood processors: 20 g/m3)4Further details and alternatives in Annex 4.C.5Excluding 151 kg for research on strawberry fruit and peppers in Spain in 2008.84October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportMajor MBCUEsin 20061991MB useestimate2(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)2005MB use3(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)2008MB quotaallocation(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)Short-listed existing MBalternatives4Historical rates of adoptionin individual MSsfrom Table 4.3, Annex 7.A(ha/year per MS)Feasible adoption rates(derived from historicalrates) and currentstatus of CUEsFumigants: 1,3-D, PIC, MethamSodium, Dazometup to 313 ha/year/MSSubstrates up to 60 ha/year/MSSteam up to 917 ha/year/MSCut flowers ~ 1610 t~ 1,800 ha> 12 MS259 t855 ha6 MS0 t60 ha0 MSResistant varieties ??Rate of up to 313 + 60 +917 = 1290 ha/year/MSAdoption completed forcommercial cut flowerproduction by end of2007Fumigants: 1,3-D, MethamSodium, Dazometup to 667 ha/year/MSPeppers ~ 2410 t~ 3,000 ha> 11 MS250 t1336 ha3 MS0 t70 ha0 MSSubstrates 175 ha / year/MSRate of up to 667 + 175 =842 ha/year/MSAdoption completed forcommercial pepperproduction by end of2007Fumigants: 1,3-D, PIC, MethamSodiumup to 94 ha/year/MSStrawberryrunners~ 740 t~ 930 ha~ 5 MS346 t~ 1500 ha4 MS212 t1364 ha2 MSPlug plants ??Rate of up to 94 + ?ha/year/MSAdoption of MBalternatives slower thanexpected.Adoption of alternativesto be completed by end of2008Mills and 640t 150 t 0 t Heat + IPM up to 3,500,000 – 4,600,000 Rate of up to 3.5 to 4.6 +6Excluding 25 kg for research on cut flowers in Spain in 2008..7Excluding 151 kg for research on strawberry fruit and peppers in Spain in 2008.October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report85Major MBCUEsin 20061991MB useestimate2(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)2005MB use3(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)2008MB quotaallocation(tonnes)(ha)(No. MSs)Short-listed existing MBalternatives4Historical rates of adoptionin individual MSsfrom Table 4.3, Annex 7.A(ha/year per MS)Feasible adoption rates(derived from historicalrates) and currentstatus of CUEsSulfuryl fluoride (+ heat) m3/ year/ MSPhosphine (+ heat) ??foodprocessingstructures12,800,000m38~ 15 MS~7,500,000m395 MS0 m30 MSModified atmosphere(structures)200.000 m3/ year0.2 + ?? millionm3/year/MSAdoption completed byend of 2007Phosphine solid formulations +heat if necessary??Phosphine gas generation ??Vacuum-hermetic treatments,low pressure??Controlled atmosphere + heat ifnecessary??CoffeebeansModestuse.No data< 1.6 t<172,800m31 MS0.5 t54,000 m31 MSHigh pressure + CO2 46,400 m3/year46,400 + ?? m3/year/MSAdoption rate slower thanexpected.Adoption to be completedby end of 20088Assuming average dosage was about 50 g/m3in 1991.9Assuming dosage of about 20 g/m386October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportANNEX V– Part A: Trend inPreplant Soil ApplicationsList of nominated (2005 – 2010 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2009 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by Parties under the CUE process foreach crop or commodity.Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Australia Cut Flowers – field 40.000 22.350 18.375 22.350Australia Cut flowers – protected 20.000 10.425Australia Cut flowers, bulbs – protected Vic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.150 7.000 7.000 3.598 3.500Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.000 67.000Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 29.790 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180Belgium Chrysanthemums 1.800 0.720 1.120Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.545 0.610 0.545Belgium Cut flowers – other 6.110 1.956 4.000 1.956Belgium Cut flowers – roses 1.640Belgium Endive (sep from lettuce) 1.650 1.650Belgium Leek & onion seeds 1.220 0.155 0.660Belgium Lettuce(& endive) 42.250 22.425 25.190Belgium Nursery Not Predictable 0.384 0.900 0.384Belgium Orchard pome & berry 1.350 0.621 1.350 0.621Belgium Ornamental plants 5.660 0.000Belgium Pepper & egg plant 5.270 1.350 3.000 1.350Belgium Strawberry runners 3.400 0.900 3.400 0.900Belgium Tomato (protected) 17.170 4.500 5.700 4.500Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.155 0.230 0.155Canada Strawberry runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 7.462 (a)14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826 (a) 1.826 1.826Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.129France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 1.400France Cucumber 85 revised to 60 60.000 15.000 60.000 60.000 12.500France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.000 60.000 52.000 9.600France Forest tree nursery 10.000 10.000 1.500 10.000 10.000 1.500France Melon 10.000 10.000 7.500 6.000France Nursery: orchard, raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.000 5.000 5.000 2.000France Orchard replant 25.000 25.000 7.500 25.000 25.000 7.000France Pepper Incl in.tomato cun 27.500 6.000 27.500 6.000October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report87Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.000France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.000 28.000France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005 only) 150(allsolanaceous)60.500 33.250 125.000 48.400France Eggplant 27.500 33.250 48.400Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.20030.000 19.200Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.00014.000 6.000Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600156.000 73.600Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000 125.000 250.000 250.000 125.000Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 18.750 25.000 18.750Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 42.777 77.000 67.000 74.540 44.750 34.698Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 113.821 303.000 240.000 220.185 114.450 85.431Israel Fruit tree nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.000 50.000 45.000 7.500Israel Melon – protected & field 148.000 142.000 140.000 87.500 87.500 125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500 87.500Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 75.000 239.000 165.000 137.500 93.750 75.000Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 22.400 56.000 28.000 NRIsrael Strawberries – fruit 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 52.250 196.000 196.000 93.000 105.960 42.750Israel Strawberry runners 35.000 35.000 20 15.800 35.000 35.000 28.000 31.900 15.825Israel Strawberry runners and fruit Ghaza 87.875 67.500 47.250Israel Tomatoes 90.000 22.750Israel Sweet potato 95.000 111.500 95.000Italy Cut flowers (protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000 250.000 187.000 30.000Italy Eggplant (protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000 194.000 156.000Italy Melon (protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000 131.000 131.000 10.000Italy Pepper (protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000 160.000 130.000 67.000Italy Strawberry Fruit (Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000 407.000 320.000Italy Strawberry Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000 120.000 120.000 35.000Italy Tomato (protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000 871.000 697.000 80.000Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 61.400 34.100 88.300 88.800 72.4 51.450 34.300Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 53.400 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 63.056Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 8.300 22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 8.325Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 90.800 194.100 203.900 182.2 136.650 91.100Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 81.100 187.200 200.700 156.700 121.725 81.149Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 15.400 129.000 98.900 94.2 32.475 21.650Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.59488October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportTotal CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.085 0.000New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.000 12.000New Zealand Strawberry runners 10.000 10.000 5.720 8.000 8.000 6.234Poland Strawberry Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 12.000 40.000 40.000 24.500Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.750 50.000 8.750Spain Cut Flowers – Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.000 53.000 42.000Spain Cut Flowers – Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 17.000(+Andalucia)20.000 15.000 43.490(+Andalucia)Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000 200.000 155.000 45.000Spain Strawberry Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000 556.000 499.290 0.0796Spain Strawberry Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000 230.000 230.000 230.000UK Cut flowers 7.560 6.050UK Ornamental tree nursery 12.000 6.000 6.000 6.000UK Strawberry (& raspberry in 2005) 80.000 63.600 68.000 54.500UK Raspberry nursery 4.400 4.400USA Chrys. Cuttings/roses 29.412 29.412 0.000USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.765 340.405 1187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 407.091USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 34.732 76.721 82.167 85.363 66.018 48.691USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 120.853 192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 122.060USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 226.021 706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 292.756USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 95.204 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 107.136USA Nursery stock - fruit trees,raspberries, roses45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 25.326 17.954 45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 25.326USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 463.282 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 756.339 548.984USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 1103.422 2052.846 1730.828 1476.019 1349.575 1269.321USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 7.381 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 7.944USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1245.249 994.582 737.584 2476.365 2065.246 1406.484 1003.876USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 131.600 78.04 0USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 18.144 18.144 18.144October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report89ANNEX VI– Part B: Post-harvest Structural and Commodity ApplicationsList of nominated (2005 – 2010 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2009 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by Parties under the CUE process foreach structural or commodity treatment.Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200+1.89.200 7.820 6.150 6.150 9.205 9.200 7.820Belgium Artefacts and structures 0.600 0.307 0.590 0.307Belgium Antique structure & furniture 0.750 0.199 0.319 0.199Belgium Churches, monuments and ships'quarters0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059Belgium Electronic equipment 0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043Belgium Flour mill see mills below 0.125 0.072 See millsbelow0.072Belgium Flour mills 10.000 4.170 9.515 4.170Belgium Mills 0.200 0.2000.200 0.200Belgium Food processing facilities0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300Belgium Food Processing premises 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030Belgium Food storage (dry) structure 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306Belgium Old buildings and objects 0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282Belgium Woodworking premises 0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101Canada Flour mills 47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 22.878 (a)47 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities (a) 10.4576.757 6.067 4.740(a) 10.457 6.757 6.067Canada Commodities 0.068France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 0.096France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.00040.000 35.000 8.000France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 1.800Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100Germany Mills and Processors45.000 19.350 45.000 19.350Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.9004.280 3.081 0.45Greece Mills and Processors 23.00016.000 1.340 23.000 15.445 1.340Greece Rice and legumes 2.355 2.355Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 2.100 3.444 2.755 2.200 1.80090October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final ReportTotal CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB QuantitiesParty Industry2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Israel Flour mills (machinery & storage)2.140 1.490 1.4900.800 0.300 2.1401.490 1.040 0.312Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 5.000Italy Mills and Processors 160.000130.000 25.000 160.000 65.000 25.000Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 5.400 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 5.800Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0.120 0 0.120Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushroomsas dry commodities4.000 3.560 1.800 0.500 4.100 3.560 1.800 1.800Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.500 2.160 1.420 1.420Spain Rice 50.000 42.065Switzerland Mills & Processors8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000UK Aircraft 0.165 0.165UK Mills and Processors 47.130 10.195 4.509 47.130 10.195 4.509UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 3.480UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 1.248 1.248UK Dried commodities (rice, fruits andnuts) Whitworths2.400 1.256 2.400 1.256UK Herbs and spices 0.035 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.037UK Mills and Processors (biscuits)2.525 1.787 0.4792.525 1.787UK Spices structural equip. 1.728 1.728 0.000 0.479UK Spices stored 0.030 0.030 0.000UK Structures buildings (herbs andspices)3.000 1.872 0.908 3.000 1.872 0.908UK Structures, processors and storage(Whitworths)1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 0.257UK Tobacco equipment 0.523 0.050UK Woven baskets 0.770 0.770USA Dried fruit and nuts (walnuts,pistachios, dried fruit and dates anddried beans)89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 19.242 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 45.623USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoabeans)61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.00261.519 55.367 64.082 53.188USA Dry commodities/ structures(processed foods, herbs and spices,dried milk and cheese processingfacilities) NPMA83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 37.778 83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 54.606USA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure porkproducts) (building and product)136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 4.465 67.907 81.708 18.998 19.699 18.998USA Mills and Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 173.023 483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 291.418

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 91 

# ANNEX VII: Disclosure and Me mbers of MBTOC Committees

Committee contact details and Disclosure of Interest To assure public confidence in the object ivity and competence of TEAP, TOC, and TSB members who guide the Montreal Protocol, Part ies to the Protocol have asked that each member to disclose proprietary, financial, and other interests. TEAP members have published such information for severa l years in the TEAP annual report.

As a result, Decision XVIII/19 was issued during the 18 th 

## Meeting of Parties to the Montreal Protocol held in New Delhi, I ndia from 28 October to 3 November 2006. All MBTOC members are presently required to comp lete a disclosure of interest form and these are presented in summarized form below.



# A – MBTOC Soil subcommittee Members - September 2008

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country Article

5 status

Co-Chairs

1. Mohamed

Besri M Institut Agronomique et

Vétérinaire Hassan II (Academia) Professor, researcher, particularly on MB

and alternatives in A5 (PhD) B Morocco A5

2. Marta

Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB alts, particularly cut flower production B Colombia A5

3. Ian Porter M Department of Primary Industries (Government research) Researcher, soils MB use and alts, particularly fungal pathogens and IPM (PhD) A Australia Non-A5

Members

4. Antonio

Bello M Centro de Ciencias

Medioambientales (Government research) Non-chemical alternatives (PhD, Prof.) A Spain Non-A5

5. Aocheng

Cao M Chinese Academy of Agricultural

Sciences (Government research) Researcher, soil alternatives, particularly in China (A5) context (PhD) B China A5

6. Peter

Caulkins M Associate Director, Special Review & Reregistration

Division US EPA Registration of alternatives, regulatory issues (PhD) C USA Non A-5

7. Abraham

Gamliel M Agricultural

Research Organization,

The Volcani Center, (Government Research) Alternatives for soils, horticulture (PhD) C Israel Non-A5

## 92 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country Article

5 status

Co-Chairs 8. George

Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agrifood Canada (Government research) Researcher, non

chemical control of soilborne pathogens (PhD) C Canada Non-A5

9 Andrea

Minuto M Centro Regionale di Sperimentazione ed Assistenza Agricola CERSAA (CCIAA Savona) Albenga Researcher, MB

and alternatives in soils (PhD) C Italy Non-A5

10 Ariane

Saade F Tolken Lebanon Economics and

trade C Lebanon A5

11. James D.

Schaub M United States Department of Agriculture (Government regulatory) Agricultural economist (PhD) B USA Non-A5

12. Sally

Schneider F United States Department of Agriculture (Government research) Researcher in soils alts, particularly replant problems and propagative

material nurseries (PhD) B USA Non-A5

13. JL

Staphorst M Plant Protection

Research Institute (Parastatal research) Expert Soil Microbiologist (DSc) A South

Africa A5

14. Akio

Tateya M Syngenta Japan

K.K. Application of MB and alts, particularly in Japan A Japan Non-A5

15 Alejandro

Valeiro M Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (Government research) Introduction/use of soils alts, including

tobacco B Argentina A5

16. Nick Vink M University of

Stellenbosch (Academia) Agricultural economics (PhD, Prof.) C South

Africa A5

17 Janny Vos F CABI, The

Netherlands Plant PathologistIPM D Holland

18. Jim Wells M Environmental Solutions Group, LLC (Consultant) Registration and regulatory - MB and alternatives,

soil uses A USA Non-A5

Totals M

=14

F

=4 A= 5

B= 6

C = 6

D= 1 A5=7

NonA5=11

A - >10 years

B – 5-10

C – 2-5 D - <2 year

Article 5 countries: 7 (39 %) Non Article ( countries): 11 (61 %)

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 93 

# Co-chairs

Professor Mohamed Besri Article 5 co-chair Department of Plant Pathology Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II

Rabat

MOROCCO

Prof. Mohamed Besri, is a full time Professor of Plant Pathology and Integrated Disease Management at the Hassan II Institute of Agr onomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco (HII IAVM). The HII IAVM has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it houses specialists in Soil-borne Plant Pathogens and MLF projects (strawberries, bananas, cut flowers). It advises the Ministry of Agriculture on all aspects of alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Prof. Besri has no proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs . Prof. Besri works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Prof. Besri’s spouse, business partner or dependant child ren, work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitut es to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or subs titutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Costs associated to tr avel, communication, and others related to participation in the TEAP, MBTO C, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by

UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.



## Ms. Marta Pizano Article 5 co-chair

Consultant Bogotá

COLOMBIA

Ms. Marta Pizano is a consultant on methyl brom ide alternatives, particularly for cut flower production, and has actively promoted methyl bromide alternatives among growers in many countries. She is a regular consultant for the M ontreal Protocol Multilateral Fund (MLF) and its implementing agencies. In this capacity, she h as contributed to MB phase-out programs in nearly twenty Article 5 countries around the world, assisting growers with the adoption of sustainable alternatives and the implementation of IPM programs. She is a frequent speaker at national and international methyl bromide conf erences and has authored numerous articles and publications on alternatives to this fumigant . She has been a member of MBTOC since 1998

and a co-chair since 2005. Neither Ms Pizano nor her husband or their children own stock or have proprietary interest in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Costs associated to travel, communication, and others related to participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings , are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat.



## Dr. Ian Porter

Consultant Victoria, AUSTRALIA

Dr Ian Porter is the Principal Research scie ntist in Plant Pathology with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI) but presently conducts MBTOC work on leave from his organisation. DPI has an interest in developing sustainable control measures for plant pathogens and biosecurity. He is a member of a number of National Committees regulating ODS, has led the Australian research program on methyl bromide alternatives for soils and has 28 years

## 94 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

### experience in researching sustainable methods for soil disinfestation of plant pathogens with over 200 research publications. He has been a member of MBTOC since 1997, Soils sub

committee chair since 2001 and MBTOC Co-chair si nce 2005. Neither, Dr. Ian Porter, his wife or children have any proprietary interest in alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter is presently assisting National research agencies in Australia develop national priorities for IPM and soil health. He has conducted projects for UNEP a nd UNIDO in developing programmes to assist China, Mexico and CEIT countries to replace me thyl bromide. The Victorian DPI has in the past made in-kind contributions to attend MBTOC and UNEP meetings, but provides no present support. The Australian Federal Government Res earch Funds and funds obtained through the Ozone Secretariat have provided funds to s upport travel and expenses for past MBTOC

activities.



# Members of record

Dr. Antonio Bello Consejo Superior de Inve stigaciones Científicas

Madrid

SPAIN

Dr. Antonio Bello Pérez is a full time Research Professor at the Centre for Environmental Sciences in the Consejo Superior de Investigaci ones Científicas, Madrid, Spain. The institute has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of the environmental impact of methyl bromide. Dr Bello Pérez has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for UNEP, Implementing Agencies a nd Governments, on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by his institution, which in turn receives contributions for this travel from national projects.



## Prof. Cao Aocheng Article 5 Member

Institute for Plant Protection Chinese Academy for Agricultural Sciences Beijing

CHINA

Dr. Aocheng Cao is a Research Professor at the Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences focusing on research in pesticide sciences. The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, a non-profit organization, is interested in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because soil pathogens and nematodes are important pests in China and alternatives to methyl bromide are urgently needed. Dr Cao has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in comp anies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. His spouse also works for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as it conducts research on pest control, but has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or perform c onsultancy for organizati ons seeking to phase out ODSs. Expenses related to Dr Cao’s attendan ce to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 95 Dr. Peter Caulkins

Associate Director Special Review & Reregistration Division EPA Washington D. C.

UNITED STATES

Dr Peter Caulkins is the Associate Director in the Special Review and Reregistration Division in the Office of Pesticide Programs in the U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA has sole authority for the regulation of all pesticide use in the U.S. and therefore has a strong interest in the Montreal Protocol’s phase-out of methyl brom ide. Neither Dr Caulkins nor his wife or their son have any proprietary interests in ODSs or their alterna tives, own no stock in either ODS companies or companies providing alternatives and do not do any consulting for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by EPA.



## Ms. Ariane Elmas Article 5 member Tokten Lebanon, UNDP

LEBANON

Ms. Ariane Elmas was formerly the project ma nager of a “Trade and Environment” project funded by UNEP, managed by UNDP and implemented by the Ministry of Environment in Lebanon. This project published a report on the e ffects of trade liberalization in Lebanon with special focus on products where methyl bromid e is used and includes an annual profitability analysis and a cost benefit analysis compari ng the Methyl Bromide alternatives used for each crop. Ms. Elmas, is an economist and is currently the Project Manager at the UNDP in Lebanon. The UNDP has an interest in the topics of th e Montreal Protocol because it is one of its implementing agencies and as such manages the MB phase out project implemented in Lebanon under the coordination of the Ministry of the Environment. Neither Ms Elmas, nor her spouse or their dependant children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companies producing ODS or thei r alternatives or substitutes or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Expe nses related to Ms Elmas’ attendance to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.



## Dr. Abraham Gamliel Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan

ISRAEL

Dr Abraham Gamliel is a full time senior researcher on methods and technologies for pest control and pesticide application at the Mi nistry of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel .He is also an adjunct professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agricultu re, Rehovot, Israel. ARO Volcani Center has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Prot ocol because it is the research and development institute for solving the farmer’s problem and for developing environmentally safe crop production. Dr Gamliel has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODS s. He works occasionally as a consultant for the Government, on matters related to the Mont real Protocol. Neither his spouse nor their children work for or consult for organizations having an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol nor do they have a proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Dr Gam liel’s travel expenses to attend MBTOC meetings are paid by the Ministry of Agriculture of Israel.

## 96 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Dr. George Lazarovits Agriculture & Agri-food Canada London, Ontario CANADA, N5V 4T3.

Dr. George Lazarovits is a research scientist at the Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Center of Agriculture and Agrifood Canada (AAFC). He is employed as a fulltime research scientist to investigate aspects of plant patholog y involved with management of soilborne plant pathogens. AAFC has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because Canada has a vested interest in eliminating ozone- depleti ng substances such as methyl bromide, which are still being used by Canadian growers and Industr ies. AAFC, in collaboration with Environment Canada, is charged with overseeing the phase-out of ozone depleting pr oducts. Dr. Lazarovits has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or those manufact uring alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not act as consultant for organizations seeki ng to phase-out ODSs, other than non profit government agencies charged with enforcing the re gulations of the Montreal Protocol. He is involved in advising as a consultant to Environment Canada (EC) on matters related to the

Montreal Protocol

, including evaluation of critical use nominations submitted to them by Canadian growers or Industries seeking ex emptions for use of MB under CUE. Such nominations, if approved by EC, are eventually adjudicated by members of MBTOC. Dr. Lazarovits’ spouse has no involvement whatsoever with any issues or has any interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol or any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. She does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to ph ase-out ODSs. They have no dependent children living with them and their children have no in volvement in any businesses dealing with issues that are in any way related to the Montreal Prot ocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by AACF, and occasionally Environment Canada, from A Base budgets



## Dr. Andrea Minuto Centro Regionale di Sperimentazion e ed Assistenza Agricola CERSAA (CCIAA Savona) Regione Rollo n° 98 17031 Albenga (SV)

ITALY

Dr Andrea Minuto is a full time employee at th e CERSAA experimental station in Italy. CERSAA has an interest in the topics of pest and disease control including soil disinfestation

because of the activities carried out in the fra me of regional and national programmes of technology transfer to growers including soilbor ne pests and diseases management issues. Dr. Minuto has no proprietary interest in alterna tives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alte rnatives or substitutes. He does consulting (as CERSAA) for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs and also works occasionally as a consultant for Implementing Agencies and Gove rnments on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse does not work or consul for organizations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol or organiza tions seeking phase-out of ODS, nor does she have any proprietary interest in alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitut es. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by Italian Ministry of Environment, Territory and Sea.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 97 Dr. James D. Schaub

Office of the Chief Economist U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington

UNITED STATES

Dr. James D. Schaub is an economist and Directorof the Office of Risk Assessment and Costbenefit Analysis, Office of the Chief Economis t, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Dr. Schaub is employed full time with in the Office of the Chief Economist, USDA in Washington D.C. The USDA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its interest in environmentally sound agricultu ral production systems and the protection stored commodities. Further, USDA is responsible fo r protection of animal and plant health from quarantine pests. Dr. Schaub has no proprietary interests in alternatives or substitute ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organization on matters related to th e Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor dependant children living at same home work fo r or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by Office of the Chief Economist, USDA.



## Dr. Sally Schneider National Program Leader – Horticulture, Pathogens & Germplasm

USDA ARS Beltsville, Maryland

UNITED STATES

Dr. Sally Schneider is a National Program Leader at the United States Department of Agriculture. Dr. Schneider is a full time Nationa l Program Leader for Horticulture, Pathogens, and Germplasm at the Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A. The Agricultural Research Service has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because they are the in-house research agency for the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Dr. Schneider has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr . Schneider does not work, occasionally or otherwise, as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Mont real Protocol. Dr. Schneider does not have a spouse, business partner, social partner, or depe ndant children living in same home. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by United States Department of Agriculture.

## 98 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Dr. JL (Stappies) Staphorst Article 5 member Recently retired senior soil microbiologist fr om the Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI) Agriculture Research Council (ARC)

Pretoria

SOUTH AFRICA

Dr. Staphorst is presently an advisor to the Pl ant Pathology and Microbiology Division of the Institute in Pretoria, South Africa. The Plant Pr otection Research Institute has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it hou ses the specialist Soil-borne Plant Diseases Unit and forms part of the Public Support Services Division that advises the Department of Agriculture on all aspects of plant diseases, pests and pesticides. Dr Staphorst has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr Staphorst works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse h as no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for or ganizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP with logistical support from the Plant Protection

Research Institute.



## Mr. Akio Tateya

Technical Adviser Syngenta Japan K.K. Tokyo

JAPAN

Mr. Akio Tateya is a Technical Adviser at Syngenta Japan K.K. a pesticide producing company, which does not produce substitutes to methyl bromid e. He also a technical adviser for the Japan Fumigation Technology Association, a non-profit body that is financially supported by the Japanese Government and companies producing methyl bromide and its substitutes. He conducts work for Syngenta Japan K.K. on a contract basis for a consultancy fee; he acts as a nominal member and adviser of the Japan Fumiga tion Technology Association, for which he is not paid. He is also a member of the Japanese delegation attending the Meeting of the Parties and Open-ended Working Groups, acting as technical adviser on matters related to the Protocol. He has been occasionally asked to attend panels or meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. He has no proprietary or any other kind of interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, nor does he own any stocks in companies producing either ODS or their

alternatives or substitutes and does not work for any organization seeking to phase-out ODS. His spouse and children do not work for organizations with an interest in the Montreal Protocol. Travel expenses to enable attendance to MBTOC meetings and other meetings related to the Montreal Protocol are paid by the Japan Fumigation Technology Association. He receives no funding from the Japanese Government.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 99 Mr. Alejandro Valeiro Article 5

member National Project Coordinator National Institute for Agriculture and Technology (INTA)

Tucumán

ARGENTINA

Mr. Alejandro Valeiro is the National Coordinator of the PROZONO Project (MLF/UNDP project ARG/02/G61) at the National Institu te for Agricultural Technology (INTA) of Argentina, based at the Famaillá INTA ́s E xperimental Station in Tucumán Province, Argentina. The INTA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the national counterpart for implementing MLF meth yl bromide phase-out projects, which are coordinated by the National Ozone Unit. Mr Vale iro has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in co mpanies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not perform permanent cons ulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant to the MLF, Implementing Agencies, on matters

related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Valeiro’s spouse consults for UNDP, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it implements MLF projects in Argentina. Neither Mr Valeiro, nor his spouse or dependant children have proprietary interest in ODS or their alternatives or substitutes, and do not ow n stock in companies producing ODS alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.



## Prof Nick Vink Article 5 member University of Stellenbosch Department of Agricultural Economics

SOUTH AFRICA

Dr. Nick Vink is Chair of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. He is a full time Pr ofessor at the University of Stellenbosch. The University has no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Dr Vink has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS

or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organisation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse or dependant child ren work for or consult for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or

their alternatives or substitutes. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.



## Dr. Janny Vos CABI, Kastanjelaan 5

3833 AN Leusden

THE NETHERLANDS

Dr. Janny Vos, MBTOC-Soil Member is a senior IPM specialist at CAB International (CABI). Dr Vos is a full time senior manager at the CABI Netherlands office. CABI has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it fits with CABI’s mission to improve people’s lives worldwide and focus on solving problems in agriculture and environment. Dr. Vos has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitut es to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Vos works occasionall y as a consultant to EC on matters related

to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC mee tings is paid by the Netherlands government.

## 100 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Mr James Wells

President Environmental Solutions Group, LLC Sacramento, California

UNITED STATES

James Wells is the President of Environmen tal Solutions Group, LLC (ESG), a regulatory consulting firm in Sacramento, California. He was invited to join MBTOC in 1993 primarily because of his experience in pesticide regulatory programs, especially with methyl bromide and methyl bromide alternatives. He worked fo r the State of California pesticide regulatory program for 27 years and was the Director of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation from 1991 to 1999. Mr. Wells has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He does not consult for organizations seeking to ph aseout ODSs. However, ESG consults with several agricultural organizations seeking Criti cal Use Exemptions for the use of methyl bromide. These organizations are; the California Strawberry Commission (CSC), the California Strawberry Nursery Association (CSNA), the Garden Rose Council (GRC) and the California Association of Garden and Nursery Centers (CANGC). Together with his staff he prepares and submits CUEs for the CSNA, GRC and CANGC to the USEPA. His spouse works for the California Department of Justice, which has no inte rest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or s ubstitutes to ODSs and does not consult with organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Trav el to MBTOC meetings is paid by ESG.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 101 

# B – MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities Subcommittee

MBTOC QSC SUBCOMMITTEE

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country

Co-Chairs

1. Michelle

Marcotte F Consultant Consultant, particularly food processing, regulations,

structural and commodity

treatments and

irradiation A Canada

Non-A5

Members

2. JonathanBanks (CoChair Quarantine Task Force) M Consultant Consultant, postharvest,particularly nonchemical and gas technologies (fumigants, CA) and QPS uses of MB. Entomologist (PhD) A Australia

Non-A5

3. Chris Bell M Consultant, formerly

Central

Science Laboratory (Government research) Postharvest technologies, particularly fumigants, phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride, controlled atmospheres and heat' (PhD) A UK

Non-A5

4. Fred Bergwerff M Eco2,

Netherlands Fumigator,specialist in nonMB systems, including heat. D Netherlands

Non-A5

5. Kathy Dalip F CARI Research entomologist (Ph D) D Belize

A5

6. Ricardo Deang M Consultant Regulatory and registration. Entomologist (PhD) A Philippines

A5

7. Patrick

Ducom M Ministère de l’Agriculture (Government research) Postharvest and

structural

alternatives A France

Non-A5

8. Ken Glassey M MAFF, New

Zealand Forester, government advisor

on MB alternatives in forest products and QPS treatments D New Zealand

Non-A5

9. Alfredo

Gonzalez M Fumigator Phosphine, QPS and non-QPS

treatments. Structures,

commodities. D Philippines

A5

## 102 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report MBTOC QSC SUBCOMMITTEE

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length of

service Country

10. Darka

Hamel F Institute for

Plant

Protection in Agriculture and Forestry (Government) Postharvest and

structural

treatments, regulations C Croatia

CEIT

11. Takashi

Misumi M MAFF (Government research) QPS expert D Japan

Non-A5

12. David Okioga M Ministry of

Environment

and Natural

Resources (Government regulatory) Postharvest and QPS MB alternatives (PhD) A Kenya

A5

13. Christoph

Reichmuth M JKLGermany (Government research) Director Institute for Ecochemistry, Plant Analysis and Stored

Product Protection (PhD) B Germany

Non-A5

14. Jordi

Riudavets M IRTADepartment of

Plant

Protection. (Government Research) IPM for stored products and horticultural crops (PhD) C Spain

Non-A5

15. John

Sansone M SCC Products (Fumigator) Fumigator, particular expertise

in structures A USA

Non-A5

16. Robert Taylor M Consultant Postharvest technology, specifically A5 uses A UK

Non-A5

17. Ken Vick M United States Department of Agriculture (Government research) Research in MB alternatives, incl. QPS. Entomologist (PhD) A USA

Non-A5

18. Chris

Watson M IGROX Ltd (Fumigator) Practical use of MB

and alternatives including the use of phosphine, Sulfuryl Fluoride,CO2 and

Heat Treatments for commodities(inc timber) and

structures A UK

Non-A5

19. Eduardo

Willink M Ministry of Agriculture Quarantine entomologist (Ph D) D Argentina

A5

Totals M =16

F =3 A= 8

B= 3

C = 2

D= 6 CEIT &

A5=7

Non-A5=12

A - >10 years

B – 5-10

C – 2-5 D - <2 year

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 103 

# Co-chair

Ms Michelle Marcotte MBTOC Co-Cha ir Quarantine, Structures and

Commodities Marcotte Consulting Inc. (Marcotte Consulting Inc is a Canadian corpora tion; its President, Mi chelle Marcotte, is

located at:

10104 East Franklin Ave. Glenn Dale, Maryland USA 20769

Ms Michelle Marcotte was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and subsequently a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee between 1992 and 2005; she was confirmed as Co-Chair in 20 05. Until 1993 she worked for MDS Nordion, a supplier of radiation processing equi pment which is an alternative to the use of methyl bromide in some commodity and quarantine situations. Since then, Ms Marcotte, through Marcotte Consulting, has provided consulting services to governments and agri-food companies in eight countries on agri-environmental issues, food tec hnology, regulatory affairs and radiation processing. Marcotte Consulting has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its long time market development work in f ood irradiation, an alternative to some methyl bromide uses, and because of its interest in food processing, food safety and trade. In the field of methyl bromide alternatives, Ms Marcotte has published case studies for pest control in food processing, for stored commodities, for alterna tives for quarantine and for greenhouse use. She is a member of the Canada Industry-Government Methyl Bromide Working Group and the Canada-USA Methyl Bromide Work ing Group; both organizations work to achieve phase out of methyl bromide in the agri-food sector. Marcotte has consulted to companies, industry associations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and USAID on irradiation as a methyl bromide alternative in food processing, quarantine and trade. She has also prepared consulting reports summarizing research in methyl bromide alternatives and case studies on food processing for US Environmental Protection Agency. Ms Marcotte has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Ms Marco tte’s spouse works for United States Department of Agriculture managing research in methyl brom ide alternatives and is a member of MBTOC. He does not have proprietary interest in alte rnatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternativ es or substitutes to ODSs. Marcotte receives a consulting contract from Government of Canada, Environment Canada, a Party to the Montreal Protocol that is committed to the phase out of me thyl bromide. Ms Marcotte pays for travel to TEAP, MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings out of consultancy funds provided by the Canadian government, Environment Canada, to support her work on MBTOC.



# Members

Dr Jonathan Banks, Co-Chair Quarantine Task Force

10 Beltana Road Pialligo

Canberra ACT

AUSTRALIA

Dr. Jonathan Banks, Chair of TEAP’s QPS Task Force, is a private consultant. He was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and from 1993 to 1998 and 2001 to 2005 cochaired the Methyl Bromide TOC. He worked as a Research Scientist with the Australian

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Resear ch Organization (CSIRO) from1972 to 1999 on

## 104 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

### grain storage technologies, including use of improved use of fumigants. He is coinventor of carbonyl sulfide, an alternative fumigant to meth yl bromide in some applications. Patent rights have been assigned to his employer, CSIRO. Dr Banks has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He has stock in Brambles Ltd, a company that inter alia leases wooden pallets for freight. The pallets may or may not be treated with methyl bromide or alternatives. His spouse is co-owner of their commercial organi c apple orchard. She has no financial interests relating to ozone-depleting substances. He h as served on some national committees concerned with ODS and their control, and within the last 4 years has received contracts from UNEP, and other institutions and public companies related to methyl bromide alternatives and grain storage technology--including training in fumigation (m ethyl bromide and alternatives) and fumigation technology and recapture systems for methyl bromide. In 2005 and 2006 he received some support from UNEP for TEAP and MBTOC activities. Other funding for his MBTOC activities has been through grants or contracts from th e Department of Environment and Heritage, Australia or from personal contributions.



## Dr Chris Bell Consultant, Formerly Central Science Library

Sand Hutton

York Y041 ILZ

UNITED KINGDOM

Dr. Christopher Hugh Bell, is a Fellow at the Ce ntral Science Laboratory (CSL), Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at York , UK, where he led research into fumigation technology, including studies on methyl bromide and potential alternatives which were sponsored by UK government agencies and priv ate companies, until hi s retirement in 2004. He is also a Regional Editor for the Journal of Stored Products Research for Europe and Africa, an Elsevier journal publishing original research addressing pr oblems encountered in the storage of durable commodities. Dr. Bell has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not represent organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant to governments and companies on matters related to methyl bromide use or replacement, or the

Montreal Protocol. Travel and subsistence to attend MBTOC meetings has been paid by the UK Department of Environment, Food a nd Rural Affairs (DEFRA), or by UNEP.



## Fred Bergweff

CEO

EcO2 BV James Wattstraat 6,

3281 NK Numansdorp, The Netherlands

Mr Fred Bergwerff is the General Manager for ECO2 B.V., a company that provides disinfestation services through controlled atmosphe res technology and equi pment, and related consulting services. He is employed in a full tim e capacity with responsibilities for joint-venture partnerships, technical assistance, training and promotion of good practices in the structural, commodity, quarantine and port disinfestation indu stries, particularly specialising in QPS and

ISPM-15 treatments. ECO2 does not have a co mmercial relationship with any fumigant or pesticide manufacturers/registrants. ECO2 has been involved in research trials on MB alternatives and has assisted companies to a dopt MB alternatives for structures, stored commodities and pre-shipment and quarantine treatme nts. ECO2 has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its expertise in disinfestation and pest control, particularly

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 105 non-chemical treatments. Other than controlle d atmospheres and the company ECO2 BV, Mr Bergwerff and his business partners in ECO2 have no proprietary interest in ODS or other alternatives to ODS, and do not own stock in companies that manufacture ODS or other alternatives to ODS. He carries out consulting wo rk for organizations and companies that are seeking to phaseout ODS. Mr Bergwerff’s wife owns shares in ECO2, has no proprietary interest in ODS or other alternatives to ODS, and does not own stock in companies manufacturing ODS or other alternatives to ODS. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by ECO2, which receives no contribution for this travel from any other company or organisation.



## Dr Kathy M. Dalip Article 5 member Entomologist

CARDI Belize Central Farm, Western Highway Cayo District Belize, Central America Mailing address: P.O. Box 2. Belmopan City

Belize

Dr. Kathy M Dalip is an Entomologist at the Caribbean Agriculture Research and Development Institute (CARDI), which has headquarters in Trin idad and offices in twelve member countries. Kathy works full-time at the CARDI Belize Unit, Central Farm, Western Highway, Cayo District, Belize, Central America. Between 2000 and 2005, Kathy was stationed at the CARDI

Jamaica Unit where she was a me mber of the Jamaica Methyl Bromide Working Group. Her

work at CARDI is focused in the areas of in tegrated pest management (IPM) and organic agriculture. Hence, her emphasis is on finding non-chemical pest control options to improve production and economic feasibility for farmers. Ka thy has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and has not done consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by for by the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP.



## Dr Ricardo T Deang Article 5 member

4 Istanbul Street

Merville Park Parañaque, Metro Manila

THE PHILIPPINES

Dr Ricardo Deang is a retired Deputy Administrato r for Pesticides of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) – a government regulatory office for fertilizers and pesticides – since April 1996. He was responsible for registration, restri ction, and banning of pesticides when imminent hazards are posed; and certification of pesticide a pplicators and fumigators. FPA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the Philippines is a signatory to the Montreal

Protocol and the office restricts/monitors meth yl bromide importation and use. Prior to this position Mr. Deang worked as a research entomologist on biological control. Currently Mr Deang is Chairman of the Board of a consu ltancy firm, Management and Executive Network, Inc. He has no proprietary interest on alternativ es or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His wife and their children have no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. They have no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

## 106 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Dr. Patrick Ducom Ministère de l’Agriculture LNDS - QUALIS 71, avenue Edouard Bourleau - BP 71

33883 VILLENAVE D'ORNON CEDEX

Jacques François Patrick Ducom, Agronomy Engineer, is a long standing MBTOC member and

head of the Laboratoire National Denrées Stock ées (LNDS), Plant Protection Service, Ministry of Agriculture, France. Dr Ducom is a full tim e researcher in fumigation LNDS. He works occasionally as a consultant for Implementing Agencies of the Multilateral Fund on matters

related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr Ducom has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in cons ulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid from the LNDS budget



## Mr Kenneth Glassey Senior Advisor Operational Sta ndards Biosecurity New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Pastoral House, 24 The Terrace

P.O. Box 2526 Wellington, New Zealand

Mr Kenneth Logan Glassey is a Senior Biosecurity Adviser at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). Ken Glassey is a full time adviser on Phytosanitary Treatments and Treatment Operators at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fo restry Head Office, Wellington, New Zealand. MAF has an interest in the topics of the Mont real Protocol because quarantine and preshipment treatments uses a significant amount of methyl bromide (218 tonnes in 2004). Current responsibilities cover researching, developing and reviewing New Zealand’s import standards including operational standards such as treat ments for imported commodities. This also involves monitoring quality and adequacy, initiating remedial action as necessary, and the provision of advice on the practical application a nd implications of such standards. Mr Glassey has been involved in QPS inspection and treatment s for 20 years with particular expertise with forest produce, and worked in forest manageme nt for 11 years prior to that. Mr Glassey has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to implementing agencies on

matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Glassey’s partner living in same home does not work for or consults for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. She has no proprietary interest a lternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternativ es or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Trav el to TEAP/TOC/TSB meetings is paid by

MAF.

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 107 Mr Alfredo T. Gonzalez Article 5 Member

President Pestcon Pest Management and General Services 33 Evening News, West Triangle Quezon City

THE PHILIPPINES

Mr Gonzalez is president of Pestcon Pest Mana gement and General Services, a company with

an interest in the Montreal Protocol because it uses methyl bromide in the for Quarantine and pre-shipment treatments as well as ISPM 15 tr eatments for wood packaging materials. Mr Gonzalez, has no proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Presently he is the general consultant for the implementation of the Methyl Bromide Phase-out program in the Philippines for the Government of his country, under the Department of Natural ResourcesPhilippine Ozone Desk (DENR-POD) in cooperatio n with the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA), which is directly related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Mr Gonzalez’s wife or their children have any proprietary interest in altern atives or substitutes in ODSs. Expenses related to Mr Gonzalez’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP.



## Dr Darka Hamel Article 5 member Institute for Plant Protection in Agricultu re and Forestry of Republic Croatia Rim 98, 10000 Zagreb

CROATIA

Dr. Darka Hamel is an entomologist responsible the protection of stored products. Dr Hamel is a full time executive manager at the Institute for Plant Protection in Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic Croatia (PPI). The PPI has an inte rest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because companies using methyl bromide for treatment in accordance with ISPM 15 are

authorized to do so in accordance with the PPI recommendation. Dr. Hamel has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr. Hamel works occasionally as a consultant to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development or the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Physical Planning regarding legislation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP.

## 108 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## Mr Takashi Misumi Ministry of Agriculture, Fore stry and Fisheries MAFF, Japan 1-16-10 Shin-yamashita, maka-ku Yokohama, 231-0801

JAPAN

Mr. Takashi Misumi, member of MBTOC since 2005 is a senior researcher at the Yokohama Plant Protection Station (YPPS). Mr. Misumi is a full time Researcher at the Quarantine Disinfestation Technology Section, Research Division of YPPS. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Neither his spouse nor their children work fo r organizations with has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Expenses rela ted to the attendance of MBTOC meetings are paid by International department of MAFF.



## Dr David M Okioga Article 5 member Coordinator, Kenya Ozone Office, Nati onal Environment Management Office Ministry of the Environment and National Resources

PO Box 67839

Nairobi

KENYA

Dr. David Okioga is a founding member of MBTO C, joining in 1992. He was MBTOC co-chair between 1997 and 2002. Dr Okioga was the Di rector, National Plant Quarantine Services of Kenya for sixteen years. He also served as the Coordinator in Agricultural Botany under the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Secretar y to the Ministry of Agriculture on Plant Breeder's Rights, Member of the National Agri cultural Research Centre, National Horticultural Research Centre, National Potato Research Cent re, and the National Committee for the National Genebank. Dr. Okioga has undertaken a number of contracts from the African Unity (then Organization of the African Unity), FAO and UNEP. Some of these consultancies were related to crop protection, where methyl bromide was considered as the chemical of choice for soil fumigation, whereas others were on strengtheni ng the Montreal Protocol policies on ODS phase out in the African region (including methyl br omide). In 1995, Dr. Okioga was appointed Coordinator, of the National Ozone Unit (NOU) of Kenya by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya, in c onsultation with UNDP, a post that he still holds at present. Dr. Okioga's main responsibility is strengtheni ng the government of Kenya in meeting the requirements of the Montreal Protocol and in phasing out of ODS in the country.Dr. Okioga has no proprietary interests in alternatives for ODS and does not consult for companies seeking to phase out ODS. Travel and expenses related to hi s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by

UNEP.



## Dr. Jordi Ruidavets IRTACrop Protection

Carretera a Cabrils Km. 2 E-08348 Cabrils (Barcelona)

SPAIN

Dr. Jordi Riudavets is a Researcher at the Institute for Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA) of Spain. He is a full time entomologist at the Crop Protection Division, with experience in the development and transfer of integrated pest management (IPM) programs for stored products and horticultural crops. The IRTA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because is a state-owned company of the Catalan Government, and its activities are

concerned with scientific research and technol ogy transfer in the areas of agriculture,

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 109 aquaculture and the agrifood industry. Dr. Riudave ts has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or

substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for or ganizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He occasionally works as a consultant to the Spanis h Government, food companies, pest control companies and private companies with interest in matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment.



## Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Institute for Stored product Protection Koenigin-Luise-St.19

D-14195 Berlin

GERMANY

Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth is chemist and r esponsible for stored product protection. Dr

Reichmuth is a full time director of the Institu te for Stored Product Protection of the Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Fo restry in Berlin, Germany, of the German Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Germany. The Federal Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection together with the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Natu re Conservation and Nuclear Safety has a pronounced interest to replace methyl bromide as quickly as possible, due to the strongly expressed political interest and public opinion in Germany. Dr Reichmuth has no proprietary interest, patent for production of phosphine from magnesium phosphide in a generator with the company Degesch Detia, Germany, patent for th e treatment of stored products and organic materials (wood) with inert atmospheres w ith the company Buse, Germany, patent for pheromone traps for Lepidopteran pests with the Max-Planck-Society, Germany, at present there are no royalties paid from the patents to Dr Reichmuth. He gave and gives advice to private companies in Germany to obtain critical use exemptions for methyl bromide in helping to understand the English forms of UNEP/TEAP, he works occasionally as a consultant to UNIDO, supporting projects or parties to replace methyl bromide. Travel to MBTOC meetings or related meetings concerning the phaseout of methyl bromide are paid by the German Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection or by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.



## Mr John Sansone

SCC Products

2641 W. Woodland Anaheim, CA 92801

UNITE D STATES

Mr John Sansone is the President and General Manager for SCC Pro ducts. He is employed in a full time capacity with responsibilities for sales, training, stewardship and as a consultant for end users in the residential, commodity, quarantine and port fumigation industries. SCC

Products has a commercial relationshi p with several fumigant/pesticide manufacturers/registrants, some of which offer products which are considered alternatives to MB. SCC Products has been involved in research trials in the food processing and stored

commodities sectors. The firm was instrumental in the transition to alternatives for the residential fumigation marketplace and curren tly is transitioning alternatives into the commodity fumigation market. It is also in volved in the implementation of recapture equipment for commodity fumigation companies in California. SCC Products has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its relationship and expertise in many fumigation areas. Mr Sansone has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alte rnatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not

## 110 October 2008 TEAP Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

### consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to the UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to

the Montreal Protocol. Mr Sansone has no re latives or business partners that work for or consult for any organization with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol nor does he have relatives or business partner having a proprieta ry interests in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or who own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phaseout ODS s. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by SCC Products, which receives no contribution for this travel from anyone.



## Mr. Robert Taylor

Consultant

27 Lancet Lane Loose, Maidstone, Kent ME15 9SA

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr Robert Taylor retired from the Natural Res ources Institute (NRI) of the United Kingdom in 2001. The NRI was a government establishment i nvolved in biological/agricultural research, development and training, primarily in relation to developing countries. In recent years the NRIhas become part of the University of Greenwich. Crop protection in both the pre- and postharvest stages has always been a major feature of NRI’s research and development programmes. Pest management, including the use of fumigants, has always features strongly in such programmes. Mr Taylor has no proprietary in terest in alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide and does not own stock in companies c onsulting for organizations seeking to phase out the chemical. He works occasionally as a cons ultant to UN agencies including UNIDO and UNEP on matters relating to the Montreal Prot ocol. Mr Taylor has no relatives or business partners who work or consult fo r organizations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor does he have relatives or business partners having proprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes to methyl brom ide, or who own stock in companies producing alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide, or who consult for companies seeking to phase out methyl bromide. Travel and subsistence for MBTOC meetings is paid for by the UK government and most recently by the Departme nt for the Environment Farming and Rural

Affairs and UNEP.



## Dr Ken Vick Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Serv ice/ National Program Staff 5601 Sunnyside Ave

Beltsville MD 20705 – 5139

UNITED STATES

Dr Kenneth W. Vick is a Senior National Pr ogram Leader for methyl bromide alternatives research at the Agricultural Research Service (A RS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). As National Program Leader he he lps lead the almost $20 million ARS research program to develop alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for soil and post-harvest applications. ARS has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it was assigned lead responsibility for developing alternatives as the primary research arm of the USDA and because it was deemed to be of high priority by the United States Government. Dr Vick has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitu tes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for any organization. His spouse, a MBTOC co-chair, consults for gove rnments, NGOs and companies that have an interest in the phase out of methyl bromide becau se they are Parties to the Protocol or because they are investigating or developing food irra diation a methyl bromide alternative for some

### October 2008 MBTOC Final Report on 2008 CUNs: Final Report 

## 111 commodities and in some quarantine situation. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does consult for organi zations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Dr Vick's

travel to MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meeti ngs is paid by the USDA Agriculture Research

Service.



## Mr Chris Watson

IGROX Ltd White Hall, Worlingworth Woolbridge, Suffolk, IP13 7HW

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr.Christopher Russell Watson is a MBTOC member since 1992. He works for Igrox Ltd in the UK as Chairman a part-time position since he is presently semi-retired. Mr Watson has been involved in the fumigation industry using both methyl bromide and other fumigants for 40 years. Together with his wife he formed Igr ox Ltd in 1976, which is now one of the largest fumigation and pest control servicing companies in the UK. For the past 20 years he has been involved in working closely with government agencies in the UK to develop safe and efficient fumigation practices and procedures. Igrox Ltd has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it supplies services and products that are alternatives to methyl bromide, as well as continuing to provide services using meth yl bromide in situations where it is still necessary. Mr Watson owns stock in Igrox Ltd, and occasionally carries out consultancy work for agencies seeking to phase out ODS's whic h have included the UK government agencies as well as private companies. His spouse doesn’t not own stocks in Igrox Ltd and has no proprietary interests in alternatives or substitu tes for ODS's and does not consult for companies seeking to phase out ODS's. Travel to MBTOC mee tings was subsidised by Igrox Ltd and the

British Pest Control Association until 2005. Pr esently, Mr Watson covers travel expenses from his own personal funds with some assistance from the UK Government(DEFRA)



## Mr Eduardo Willink Article 5 member Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombrés William Cross 3150, Las Talitas,

4101 Tucumán

ARGENTINA

Mr Eduardo Willink is Director of Special Disciplines and Head of the Agricultural Zoology Department of the Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombrés Tucumán, Argentina. He is a full time researcher in entomo logy who leads a team of researchers working on quarantine treatments, systems approach and pest host status, and is a member of the Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments within IPPC, FAO. The organization has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because its mission is to resolve regional agro industrial problems with the least impact on th e environment. Mr Willink has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS

or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do es not consulting for organizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Neither his spouse or dependant ch ildren work for or consult for organizations with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Pr otocol, nor do they have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or consult for orga nizations seeking to phaseout ODSs. Travel to TOC is paid by UNEP.